RE: ///PP, I was going to respond to your post as I thought you made some good points. However I see you removed it and although I don't know why///

I feel the interpatation is true. But after posting it I felt very restless.

As far as this being Sreeram answer : to KJV only believers.
that is sterotyping.
Bro Keith Daniels is an excellant example of One whom is I believe and I am sure Sreeram agrees filled with the Spirit.

Dry fundamentalism runs rapid no matter ones few on inspiration.

This is a good topic heydave.

edit add: Our Lord was more intune than anyone. In the midst of Spirtual battle he relied on the Written Word for propositional revelation, He viewed the written word as more than just containing personal revelation.
We find a Checks and Balances in the temptation account.

Though, they do not disagree, but we all know that the Lord by His Spirit will give more personal direction to each individual regarding their life. On the other hand, many have no idea what a relationship with the Holy Spirit is all about.

I agree with the basic premise of this thread, I disagree with the conclusion many are drawing!
It is very dangerous and a very unbiblical conclusion!
It is throwing Christianity out with the bath water.

ROBERT BRINSMEADs artical is very unbiblical and extremely dangerous !!!

Eta Linnemanns a Bultmannian turned evangelicals book "Historical Criticism of the Bible Methodology or Ideology" is a must read for any one buying into Mr ROBERT BRINSMEADs mindset

also "The End of the Historical Critical Method" by Gerhard Maier is worth reading

both are written by Germans whom have had to fight German Idealism and humanism head on.

FREEDOM FROM BIBLICISM : ROBERT BRINSMEAD
tested in light of Scripture

"

Heydave wrote : .."

Mr BRINSMEAD than makes this statement :

Wow! I did not get that from Brinsmead's article at all, PP.

And I agree with over 90% of your posts. How did you arrive at those conclusions from his article? Maybe, something slipped past me or I was just focusing on something different.

Julius21

I got it from reading the words that he wrote. and responded in my the first post refuting his artical.

I then researched him and got absolute confirmation that I indeed had read correctly.


read this if you doubt my statements : The Scandal of Joshua Ben Adam, Part 1
By Robert D. Brinsmead VERDICT, May 1998

http://www.bobbrinsmead.com/t_the_scandal_of_joshua_ben_adam_pt1.html#Introduction:_This_MAN_and_the_Christia

Proud papa,
Well done!
Your antennas are quite sensitive, moreso than mine at least and so for that and your look into this mans writings/position and for being bold and sharing here, I am in your debt!
I read all the links that you and brother Julius shared and I without a doubt concur with your findings and realize my own discernment is lacking.

Thank you+:)

_________________
Fletcher

OK, first thanks PP for looking into the writings of Mr Brinstead and highlighting the error. I thought at first your response was a bit strong, but I can see why, based on his background. I see he has been in the Children of God movement for 40 years, which is a major concern.

I had written a response to Julius after reading the 2nd Brinstead article with concerns about what was written, but my tablet crashed just as I was going to post! This was very frustrating, but maybe this was of the LORD, as I then read PP's posts and had time to look into it in more depth.

The mistaken position taken by Brinstead on these posts is the dismissal of the authority of scripture (obviously he has even more heretical views as well). For me the issue is not the authority of scripture (it is final authority for life and conduct for Christians and the church), but how scripture is viewed and used. Hence this is why I quoted this statement by Brinstead "We must stop using the Bible as though it were a potpourri of inerrant proof-texts by which we can bring people into bondage to our religious traditions." In hindsight I can see his inclusion of the word 'inerrant' in this phrase is troublesome and I would not include that, but I still think that the statement is generally true if that is taken out.

The big problem in the church today is this wrong view and use of scripture, taking proof texts out as if they on their own can be used to establish a doctrine or practise. This is prevalent among all sectors of the church from IFB to WOF movements. We have all at some point in one way or another probably done this. We need the holy Spirit to renew our minds in reading and understanding scripture. The best way I know of avoiding falling into this type of 'proof texting' is to read the bible systematically, book by book, chapter by chapter, asking the LORD to reveal His word to us. This only, as opposed to reading topically, inserting our preconceptions into the text, will help us understand what is written.

Let me give an example: My wife and I are reading through 1 John. In Chapter 4 we read in verse 15 "Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God". As a proof text this could be used to say 'if you confess Jesus is God you will be born again' (God in you and you in God). However in verse 3 it says "every spirit who confesses that Jesus has come in the flesh is of God". In verse 7 "Everyone that loves is born of God" and in verse 16 "he who abides in love abides in God". So which is it? When we understand John's letter, and this part in particular, we see that John is actually showing how to test who is a false prophet and what they and an Antichrist spirit looks like, what characterises their doctrine and life (see Ch 4 verses 1 and 2). So hence the importance of how we view the 'words' of scripture! They are not in themselves (in isolation to the message being communicated) divine, but it is the whole context of what was written that is authoritative and divinely given.

To labor the point, if I were to say that John said' if you confess Jesus as Lord, you will abide in God', would I be faithfully representing what he said? I would suggest not, I would be misrepresenting him, because I have taken it out of the context of everything he wrote in this letter and he would be rightly upset. Although he said these 'actual words', he did not actually say (mean) that. He is saying this is one of the characteristics that is evident in a true Christian. This is clear when we read and quote the whole chapter (and even better, whole letter).
Politicians and the media play this 'sound bite' game to try and trap each other or give a false impressions. It is not something believers should do!

_________________
Dave

Hey Guys,

I am following this although very loosely right now.