SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
See Opportunities to Serve with SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Can we maintain spiritual unity with doctrinal diversity in the church?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 Next Page )


To Loingirder:

When each of us appears before Jesus Christ at the Bema Seat, everything that we have done during our life will be revealed and tried by fire. What is burned, we will not suffer loss, and we will still be saved. What every man has done for the sake of Jesus Christ and his gospel is like gold, silver, and precious stones. What is burned is like wood, hay and stubble.

1 Cor 3:12-15)
12. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; 13. Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. 14. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
15. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

My first question to you is: How old are you?

My second question is: Since you and I will answer to Christ for our behavior during our lifetime, why do you continue to mock His Word on these threads. Do you consider yourself above His Word?




LoinGirder wrote:
To jimp:

The verses you quoted support your position. That position is that we should all love one another, and get along, and let the Gospel be IGNORED.

Walter is right, as always, jimp. Your method of Bible interpretation is novel, to say the least. You're saying that when Jesus said, "Love one another," what he really meant was "Love one another." This sort of free-wheeling, exotic interpretation of Scripture is bound to incite controversy. Let's stick with the plain meaning of the text: when Jesus said "love one another" he meant "love sound doctrine."

 2009/10/16 18:47


To Loingirder (again)

The Catholics had nothing to do with it. Jesus Christ is the one who protected and PRESERVED His Word through the Believing Church, passed down since the beginning.


Let us examine some verses where God has promised both to give and protect His Word.

"Then said the Lord unto me, Thou hast well seen: for I will hasten my word to perform it." (Jeremiah 1:12)

Here God says He is watching over His Word to perform it – to make all that He has said come to pass.

Jesus said, "Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away." (Mark 13:31)
God did not promise to keep the original piece of material upon which His words were given. He says His Words SHALL NOT PASS AWAY. Therefore, this promise demands that we still have them on planet earth.

Jesus also says, "Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels." (Mark 8:38)

Why this verse if God has not preserved His Word?
"But the word of the Lord endureth forever." (I Pet.1:25)

This is a direct quote of Isaiah 40:8. God has said that His Word will endure forever! He did not promise that the original piece of paper, rock or vellum would exist forever but that He would preserve the Word – forever.

"The grass withereth, the flower fadeth; but the word of our God shall stand for ever." (Isaiah 40:8)

".. for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name." (Psalm 138:2)

Look at that! God says He has magnified His Word above His name! That is incredible for supposedly THE name was so sacred to the Jews that they did not even pronounce it.

Jesus said "... and the Scripture cannot be broken." (John 10:35)

Thus, on the basis of God's many promises we declare and proclaim to you that we have in our hands the absolutely infallible inerrant Living Word of Almighty God – that God has promised to keep His Word as revealed through these Scriptures. But there is more!

"The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shall keep them, O Lord, thou shall preserve them from this generation forever." (Psa.12:6, 7)

This is a promise from God! Do you believe it, Loingirder? He says He will preserve it--Do you believe it, Loingirder?. He did not just promise to give the originals pure and free from error – He promised to preserve the text forever!

"He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day." (John 12:48)

Since God's Word will judge us, are we to believe that God will judge us by something which He meticulously gave us and then lost along the way? Would it be just and fair of God to judge us with these words if they are no longer trustworthy – to hold us accountable when our guide is not 100 percent reliable?

In Matthew 5:18, Jesus said not "one jot or one tittle" shall change in the Word of God. Specifically, He was speaking of the Old Testament. We are being taught today that perhaps the Old Testament is not true, that it is full of contradictions, scribal errors, etc., but Jesus said that it was true and unerring – even to the smallest detail – and He was not referring to the originals, but to copies of copies of copies.

"Do you not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?" (John 5:45-47)

Was Jesus speaking of the "originals"? No, for they did not have the originals. They had copies of copies of copies of the originals yet Jesus said "not one jot or one tittle" had been changed. If God has only promised the "ORIGINALS" to be pure then Jesus erred in His assessment of the Scriptures. Should these statements of Jesus concerning the Scriptures be inaccurate then He is not Lord, no longer all knowing, no longer all God.

"Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life." (John 5:39-40)

The ultimate purpose of the Scriptures is to lead us to Christ – and then to guide our lives. If the Scriptures are not accurate, if they have been changed or altered, if they have been lost so that we no longer have the Word of God, how can we come to Christ for they are the Holy Spirit's implement to testify of the Lord Jesus.

As set forth above, I have Scripturally demonstrated that faith in the preservation of the text is a basic Bible doctrine.

Furthermore, the context of these many promises is not that God's Word is to be preserved in a jar somewhere in a cave or desert, lost for hundreds of years waiting to be found and restored to the believing remnant of the Church. The context is very clear in Second Timothy 3:16-17 that the inspired Word was given by God as a deposit to the Body of Christ "that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works".

Therefore, for God to accomplish this stated purpose for His having given us His Word – it must remain accessible to the disciples of the Lord, Christ Jesus!




LoinGirder wrote:
Really glad you brought this up. I have a question for you. On what authority do you rely to KNOW that each and every single one of these books belong IN the New Testament Canon? How were they deemed so? Who made the decision?

Even the mighty Walter preferred to duck that one. Even Luther had a tough time with this one, because the answer, of course, is that THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH chose which 27 books to include in the Bible.

 2009/10/16 18:57


As set forth above, I have Scripturally demonstrated that faith in the preservation of the text is a basic Bible doctrine.

That was a really long post trying to prove what we already agree about. God preserved His written word. I also believe that He preserved His unwritten word as well. You love to use the term "word of God" exclusively for the written Scriptures. But this is unwarranted.

You are still dodging the question you have yet to address.

Let's try that again:

On what authority do you rely to KNOW that each and every single one of these books belong IN the New Testament Canon? How were they deemed so? Who made the decision?

No dancing this time.

 2009/10/17 1:33


by LoinGirder on 2009/10/16 15:41:09 Quote: Really glad you brought this up. I have a question for you. On what authority do you rely to KNOW that each and every single one of these books belong IN the New Testament Canon? How were they deemed so? Who made the decision? Even the mighty Walter preferred to duck that one. Even Luther had a tough time with this one, because the answer, of course, is that THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH chose which 27 books to include in the Bible.

Well the Orthodox would say that it was the Catholic Orthodox Church. But was all one, holy, catholic and apostolic church anyway.

If these guys want to go with a Christ-rejecting Jewish council of Jamnia's canon...they are welcome to.

I'll stick with the church.

 2009/10/17 1:36


To orthodox: “Saint John Chrysostom” was nothing more than a Roman Catholic Gnostic, that would not know the truth if he walked into it. The “Bible” that he studied from was created by other Gnostics, and eventually became the "Roman Catholic Bible": “Of these confessions we are profoundly realized and make public to all beings daily in the Gnostic Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass” This is the link to the above: St. John Chrysostom, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass Who were these Gnostics, who cut and pasted God's Spirit breathed Word, and created their own Bible? Their Bible that has 7 extra false books, created by them (1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Additions to Esther, Wisdom of Solomon, Baruch, Additions to Daniel, Prayer of Manasses, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) Noah Websters 1828 Dictionary of the English Language has this to say about them: GNOS'TIC, n. nostic. [L. gnosticus; Gr. to know.] The Gnostics were a sect of philosophers that arose in the first ages of christianity, who pretended they were the only men who had a true knowledge of the christian religion. They formed for themselves a system of theology, agreeable to the philosophy of Pythagoras and Plato, to which they accommodated THEIR INTERPRETATIONS OF SCRIPTURE. They held that all natures, intelligible, intellectual and material, are derived by successive emanations from the infinite fountain of deity. These emanations they called oeons. These doctrines were derived from the oriental philosophy. GNOS'TIC, a. nostic. Pertaining to the Gnostics or their doctrines. GNOS'TICISM, n. nos'ticism. The doctrines, principles or systems of philosophy taught by the Gnostics. A BRIEF HISTORY OF MODERN TRANSLATIONS: "Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit: but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit." —Matt. 7:17-18 Note the roots of corruption. I. Justin Martyr (100 A.D.) A. He was born a pagan, and died in the robes of a pagan priest. B. He was the first to mix Gnosticism with Christianity. Gnosticism was a heretical doctrine which taught that Christ was created by God the Father. Funk and Wagnall's Standard Dictionary defines Gnosticism as "A philosophical and religious system (first to sixth century) teaching that knowledge rather than faith was the key to salvation." Many scholars today place their knowledge above faith in God's word. "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" —Rom. 10:17 C. Historian Dr. Benjamin G. Wilkinson wrote, "In the teachings of Justin Martyr, we begin to see how muddy the stream of pure Christian doctrine was running among the heretical seats fifty years after the death of the apostle John." ("Which Bible?". ed. Dr. David 0. Fuller, Grand Rapids International Pub., Grand Rapids, Mica., 49501, p. 191) II. Tatian (150 A.D.) A. He was a disciple of Justin Martyr. Like Martyr, he also embraced Gnosticism. B. Tatian wrote a harmony of the gospels using the Christian Scriptures and the Gnostic gospels, thus omitting Scripture (such as John 8:1-11; and Mark 16.9-20). His "Harmony of the Gospels" was so corrupt that the Bishop of Syria threw out 200 copies. III. Clement of Alexandria (200 A.D.) A. Clement was a disciple of Tatian (Remember Luke 6:40-"The disciple is not above his master: but everyone that is perfect shall be as his master.") B. Clement taught that there was no real heaven or hell, no blood atonement of Christ, and no infallible Bible. C. He used the Gnostic Scriptures to teach his students. D. He founded the school of Theology in Alexandria Egypt. IV. Origen (184-254 A.D.) A. Origen was a disciple of Clement of Alexandria. B.He held to the same doctrine as Clement, plus he taught baptism was necessary for babies to gain salvation. C. Origen stated, "The Scriptures are of little use to those who understand them as they are written." (Ibid. p. 192). D. Dr. Wilkinson stated, "When we come to Origen, we speak the name of him who did the most of all to create and give direction to the forces of apostasy down through the centuries." (Ibid.). E. Origen was one of the first textual critics. His textual work in both the N.T. and the O.T. (the "Hexapla") was the basis for two of the most corrupt manuscripts used by the Roman Catholic Church. (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus). F.Origen developed a method of Biblical interpretation which is called "allegorization". Origen believed the Bible was only a set of stories that illustrate truth, but not literal facts. He believed Christ to be created and subordinate to the Father (the same as Jehovah's Witnesses), the pre-existence of the soul before birth (the same as the Mormons), and the final restoration of all spirits (Universal Salvation). (see Dr. Earle Cairns "Christianity Through The Centuries", Zondervan Publishing House, p. 122). V. Eusebius (260-340 A.D.) A. He was trained at Origen's school in Alexandria. B. Eusebius was the editor of two Greek manuscripts (mss.) named Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. These two mss. were discredited and abandoned by early Christians as being corrupt. ("Which Bible?" p. 139,143). These (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus)are Roman Catholic mss. and were not used by Protestant Christians until 1881. These two mss. are the basis for Roman Catholic Bibles and every major English translation of the Bible since 1901. These mss. were not the ones used for the King James Bible. C. Eusebius was Roman Catholic in his doctrine (see his book, "Ecclesiastical History", Vols. 1-5). D.He was commissioned by Emperor Constantine to make 50 copies of Scripture for the Roman church. Eusebius copied the Gnostic Scriptures and Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. VI. Jerome (340-420 A.D.) A. Like Eusebius, Jerome was Roman Catholic in doctrine. B.Jerome translated the Greek mss. of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus into Latin (called Jerome's Latin Vulgate). This was the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church. C. The ms. Vaticanus was placed in the Vatican library, while the ms. Sinaiticus was abandoned in a Catholic monastery, and they were not used for the next 1,500 years. VII. Tischendorf (1869) A. He was the first Protestant to find and use the mss. of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. B. Tischendorf was a liberal theologian. VIII. Westcott and Hort (1881) A.They used Vaticanus and Sinaiticus (the text created by the Gnostics, above) to produce a new Greek N.T.. This Greek N.T. is not the same as the one used for the KJB nor during the Reformation. B. Their Greek N.T. was the basis for the Revised Version (RV) of 1881 and the basic Greek text for all modern translations such as the RSV, TEV, NASV, N.TV, etc. C. The Greek text of Westcott and Hort (W & H) differs from the Greek text of the King James Bible (the Received Text) 5,788 times, or 10% of the text. (For examples, see the section "A Brief Comparison of Bible translations".) D. Since all modern translations are based on the work of W & H, it would do us well to know the theology of these two men. WESTCOTT: "I wish I could see to what forgotten truth Mariolatry (Mary-worship) bears witness." "No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they did." HORT: "Mary-worship and Jesus-worship have very much in common." "Protestantism is only parenthetical and temporary." "The pure Romish view (Catholic) seems to be nearer, and more likely to lead to the truth than the Evangelical." "Evangelicals seem to me perverted rather than untrue." These men did not hold to sound doctrine; instead they have turned, "...away their ears from the truth, and she be turned unto fables." —2 Tim. 4:4 NOTE: Where the KJB and the Catholic Bible (such as the New American Bible) differ, the NIV and the NASV agree with the Catholic Bible. The Bible says, "For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: —2 Corinthians 2:17a. The prophet Amos wrote, "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord." —Amos 8:11

You've got this all in a nice neat little package don't you? Let's get to bursting this heretical bubble, shall we?

You don't like the fact that the ENTIRETY of early ante-Nicene body of evidence sounds "catholic" or "orthodox" so you accuse early Christianity of being gnostic. That would be hilarious if you weren't so serious. These very men whom you accuse of being gnostic FOUGHT gnosticism and prevailed. But let's take a look even earlier than Justin Martyr. You say things went wrong after John was dead? Well, let's take a look at the guys who were still alive and who knew John and Peter. Men whom they installed as bishop and entrusted the sacred deposit of faith. I'll prove to the world here and now that you believe that the Christian faith was a failure from the moment it passed out of apostolic hands.

The first Christians believed that the Eucharist was a sacrifice and proclaimed this in their writings. They recognized the sacrificial character of Jesus’ instruction, "Do this in remembrance of me" (Touto poieite tan eman anamnasin; Luke 22:19, 1 Cor. 11:24–25) which is better translated "Offer this as my memorial offering."

Thus, Protestant early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly writes that in the early Church "the Eucharist was regarded as the distinctively Christian sacrifice. . . . Malachi’s prediction (1:10–11) that the Lord would reject Jewish sacrifices and instead would have "a pure offering" made to him by the Gentiles in every place was seized upon by Christians as a prophecy of the Eucharist. The Didache indeed actually applies the term thusia, or sacrifice, to the Eucharist. . . .

"It was natural for early Christians to think of the Eucharist as a sacrifice. The fulfillment of prophecy demanded a solemn Christian offering, and the rite itself was wrapped in the sacrificial atmosphere with which our Lord invested the Last Supper. The words of institution, ‘Do this’ (touto poieite), must have been charged with sacrificial overtones for second-century ears; Justin... (who fought gnosticism) understood them to mean, ‘Offer this.’ . . . The bread and wine, moreover, are offered ‘for a memorial (eis anamnasin) of the passion,’ a phrase which in view of his identification of them with the Lord’s body and blood implies much more than an act of purely spiritual recollection" (J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines [Full Reference], 196–7).

The Didache

"Assemble on the Lord’s day, and break bread and offer the Eucharist; but first make confession of your faults, so that your sacrifice may be a pure one. Anyone who has a difference with his fellow is not to take part with you until he has been reconciled, so as to avoid any profanation of your sacrifice [Matt. 5:23–24]. For this is the offering of which the Lord has said, ‘Everywhere and always bring me a sacrifice that is undefiled, for I am a great king, says the Lord, and my name is the wonder of nations’ [Mal. 1:11, 14]" (Didache 14 [A.D. 70]).

Clement of Rome (successor and friend of Peter, Paul, and John - mentioned by Paul in Scripture)

"Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate those who blamelessly and holily have offered its sacrifices. Blessed are those presbyters who have already finished their course, and who have obtained a fruitful and perfect release" (Letter to the Corinthians 44:4–5 [A.D. 80]).

Ignatius of Antioch (successor to Peter in Antioch, friend and disciple of the apostles)

"Make certain, therefore, that you all observe one common Eucharist; for there is but one Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and but one cup of union with his Blood, and one single altar of sacrifice—even as there is also but one bishop, with his clergy and my own fellow servitors, the deacons. This will ensure that all your doings are in full accord with the will of God" (Letter to the Philadelphians 4 [A.D. 110]).

So what say you? Will you give up your heresy?

 2009/10/17 1:48

Joined: 2005/6/18
Posts: 1481


hi all,in 40 years of ministry as a missionary and other stuff i spent 2 years with bro ravenhill and he warned me about those that knew the bible of God but not the God of the bible. it is so evident in some of these posts that very proud people are spewing out their honest thoughts of what the bible truth is... but truth is Jesus ... the way is Jesus...and He said that you will know that they are my disciples by their love for one another...if you ever ministered to demon possessed people who need someone to bind the strongman in their lives and spend much time in the battle against the principalities of wickedness in their lives ... it takes love and power from on high...please do not tell people who have been in many battles to win souls for Christ how to believe from an intellectual standpoint only. with love in Christ jimp

 2009/10/17 2:16Profile



We will both answer for the same thing on Judgment Day. The difference is that I won't step up to the White Throne expecting a heavenly reward for my work as a Dogma Enforcement Officer. I invented LoinGirder as a one-post joke (remember when I warned you about Chuck Smith's role in the fluoridation conspiracy?), but LoinGirder got so much fan mail that I ran with it for a while. Now I'm running out of jokes and this thread is the perfect place to explain The LoinGirder Project.

To answer your first question, I am 42. LoinGirder's immaturity was part of the joke. LoinGirder is me when I was fifteen and my Heroes of the Faith were Jack Chick, Mike Warnke and Keith Green. Now I look back and cringe at the nonsense I believed and the way I treated people for disbelieving the nonsense that I believed. My excuse is that I was fifteen. I can't tell you how many times I've read posts on this forum and assumed that the writer was 15, only to find he was in his fifties or sixties, or even in his seventies, like that poor "Intensity" nut who got booted off the forum. (Remember when he called you a "pompous fop" for disagreeing with his doctrine? I don't know how a guy who wears horn-rimmed glasses and polyester leisure suits and carries a Jack Van Impe Soulwinner's Bible gets labelled a "fop" but anyway...) I was literally shocked to learn that Intensity was 73 years old! He had the psychology of a teenager - a fragile ego trying to vaunt itself into manhood - and an immature teenager at that. But there you are: dogmatism is always marked by an unusual level of emotional immaturity.

You seem to think that my humorous twisting of the Scripture to support fundamentalism is irreverent and I might be in trouble with the Almighty. I don't. Sanctified satire is justifiable because there is no better way to disaffect people to error than getting them to laugh at it. And fundamentalism is error. In fact, it is a heresy in the strictest New Testament sense of the term. When you sift through the rhetoric, fundamentalism defines "faith" as "sound doctrine." This is a vast departure from "the faith once delivered unto all the saints." Sound doctrine is essential, because saving faith can only arise from a foundation of Gospel truth - no one needs to explain that to you! But faith and doctrine are not the same thing, yet fundamentalism confounds them, making no distinction. Faith in Jesus is synonymous with faith in evangelical theology. Keep this in mind when you peruse your favorite heresy watchdog websites and you will see that this is the case.

Why do fundamentalists infallibly fall into bibliolatry - making an idol out of a casket of words? You said yourself,

"The ultimate purpose of the Scriptures is to lead us to Christ"

By this do you mean a living, personal, experiential relationship with Christ? If so, why do fundamentalists stop short, worshipping the roadmap instead of following the road? Why do they obsess over the errors of others? Why do they perceive "compromise" as the primal sin? Why do they reduce the Bible to an object that they can control, instead of a subject that acts upon and controls them?

All these follies arise from the fundamental error of confounding faith with dogma. But this error did not occur by chance; it arose from the peculiar adolescent psychology of the sectarian.

Jesus said, "If ye love me, keep my commandments...This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you." But since no two people - much less the entire body of Christ - can agree on all things, keeping this commandment entails compromise. But in fundamentalism compromise is a sin.

"Can we maintain spiritual unity and doctrinal diversity in the church?"

If "we" includes fundamentalists, the answer is no. We can invite them to the table, but they won't come. That would be compromise.

And that's the point of the LoinGirder project: fundamentalism is not Christianity. It is a cult like the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society and every other American-born religion.

Exit LoinGirder

 2009/10/17 3:07

 Re: Re Apostate Church

To Loingirder (AKA Wayne):

The liberal always attacks the messenger, and thus try’s to obfuscate the message. We have seen that in the recent election when the Liberal Press personally attacked Joe the Plumber, rather than focusing on his message that Obama planned on taking money from those that have it and giving it to those who don’t (redistribution of wealth).

What I have posted is Scripture, that supports my position. Since the liberal Christian places absolutely no value whatsoever on the Word of God and in most cases is totally ignorant of the scripture, he attacks the poster. Not once, but every time.[color=990000][b] In reality, the liberal Christian is offended by the Scripture, by the very Word of God. That is what they are rejecting.[/color][/b]

We certainly are in the last days. The Purpose Driven Church, the Emergent Church, Contemplative prayer, the Name it and Claim it bunch, The Joel Olsteen false message. And guess what? These last day, apostate movements above are filled to the brim with goats that think they are sheep.

If the Word of God was studied, and internalized by Christians today, there would NOT be an apostate Church.

My purpose is not to”win” people to Christ. My purpose is to guide those that are here into all truth. The only way to do that is through the Scriptures.

The problem with you loingirder (and all other "liberal Christians"), is that you have rejected the authority of the Scriptures.[color=990000][b] Thus those that you have "lead" to Christ are totally at the mercy of the Rick Warrens and Joel Olsteen’s of this world. With your own personal rejection of the authority of the Scriptures and their importance in the life of the believer, you are actually responsible for assisting Satan in creating his apostate church, that will march into the great tribulation.[/color][/b]




LoinGirder wrote:

We will both answer for the same thing on Judgment Day. The difference is that I won't step up to the White Throne expecting a heavenly reward for my work as a Dogma Enforcement Officer. I invented LoinGirder as a one-post joke (remember when I warned you about Chuck Smith's role in the fluoridation conspiracy?), but LoinGirder got so much fan mail that I ran with it for a while. Now I'm running out of jokes and this thread is the perfect place to explain The LoinGirder Project.


 2009/10/17 12:27



I hope "exit loingirder" doesn't mean you left the forum. That would be awful. I really appreciate much of what you say.

If you say faith and dogma must individually be understood, I agree. But both faith and dogma are valid in the strict sense of the words.

Strong words about Prot fundies. But I understand where you are coming from. I, myself, obviously am not a minimalistic fundamentalist.

You are right. It is not scriptural or Christian in the original sense of the term.

 2009/10/17 15:31



BTW, I actually spent an afternoon with Jack Chick once. He's a nice guy. At the time that was a big deal for me. Now I really think he is just very misguided and gullible. Too bad.

 2009/10/17 15:32

Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy