Re: Virgin Birth

From: Guy Blanchet (guyblanchet@sympatico.ca)
Date: Fri Mar 08 2002 - 17:08:17 EST

  • Next message: Jim Eisele: "A New Vision"

    Moorad,

    You're right. The reason I use the word religion is that I often talk with unbelievers. I figure I have enough trouble just talking about the Good News without getting into such secondary details as the difference between a religion and a relationship with God. Once the
    knowledge of the Good News sinks in then the difference between a religion and a relationship with God generally slides into place.

    GB

    alexanian@uncw.edu a écrit:

    > Actually, Christianity is not really a religion. In Christianity God seeks (sought) man; whereas in religion man seeks God. Christ left no middle ground (The Unpardonable Sin): "He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters." Matt. 12:30.
    > Moorad
    >
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Guy Blanchet [mailto:guyblanchet@sympatico.ca]
    > Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 7:04 AM
    > To: Adrian Teo
    > Cc: 'stucandu@lycos.com '; 'asa@calvin.edu '
    > Subject: Re: Virgin Birth
    >
    > Adrian,
    >
    > It was God who defined the boundaries of Christianity. Although there are
    > zillions of religious, they can be separated in two groups:
    > 1. the religions of the world which group those who feel man saves himself
    > through good works
    > 2. Christianity who groups those who are convinced through the Holy Spirit
    > that God saves man because of His atoning death and ressurection.
    >
    > There is no middle position. If you accept the Good News, the plan of
    > salvation, then your Christian. If you don't accept it, you're not Christian.
    > People may discuss all they want....but that will not change God's decision by
    > one iota!
    >
    > Guy
    >
    > Adrian Teo a écrit:
    >
    > > Hello Guy,
    > >
    > > While I disagree strongly with Stuart's conclusions, I must say I am not
    > > surprised. There are many intellectual Christians who believe, as Howard
    > > does and has argued, that all matters of faith should be open to question
    > > and reevaluation. Stuart is simply putting this belief into practice and
    > > has, IMHO, presented a somewhat reasonable and plausible argument for
    > > rejecting the divinity of Christ. This Arian argument is still very much
    > > around today, and they are holding their ground quite well. The Scriptures
    > > can be used to support both opposing arguments. We will continue to hear
    > > these arguments brought up, continue to see denominations splitting up over
    > > doctrinal disagreements, and continue to see fragmentation in the church as
    > > long as people continue to boldly adopt this skeptical/critical approach to
    > > Christianity. It is every man and woman for himself/herself. We each become
    > > our final arbiter of truth.
    > >
    > > This is my observation of the state of affairs, and I've tried to describe
    > > it as objectively as possible, given my limitations. It is not in any way
    > > intended to offend or insult anyone, nor to accuse anyone of being
    > > unChristian (unOrthodox perhaps), although we do need to define the
    > > bounadries of Christianity, lest it becomes a menaingless concept.
    > >
    > > My two-cents worth.
    > >
    > > Adrian.
    > >
    > > -----Original Message-----
    > > From: Guy Blanchet
    > > To: stucandu@lycos.com
    > > Cc: asa@calvin.edu
    > > Sent: 3/2/2002 6:56 PM
    > > Subject: Re: Virgin Birth
    > >
    > > Stuart d Kirkley a écrit:
    > >
    > > > --
    > > >
    > > > On Fri, 1 Mar 2002 15:24:28
    > > > bivalve wrote:
    > > > Even being born as the heir apparent to Caesar
    > > > would have made the Creator physically dependent on others to feed
    > > > and clean Him.
    > > >
    > > > I still, for the life of me, can not understand how people can
    > > rationally state that Jesus was God incarnate. To me this is one of the
    > > biggest stumbling blocks of theololgy which stems from and leads to a
    > > narrowness of scriptural interpretation. If, as the Bible states clearly
    > > many times, God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son
    > > to be the Saviour of the world, reveals God as Parent and Son as
    > > offspring, distinct and individual, how do you arrive at the idea that
    > > Jesus was God???!! I just find it incredulous that well reasoned people
    > > can actually hold to this doctrine.
    > > > Sorry, I had to get that out.
    > > >
    > > > 2,000,000,000 Web Pages--you only need 1. Save time with My Lycos.
    > > > http://my.lycos.com
    > >
    > > Mr Kirkley,
    > >
    > > Do you feel better now that you 'got it out'? So you're blown away by
    > > the fact that well-reasoned people believe Jesus is God? Don't be.
    > > Isaiah said these words about Jesus : "See, I lay in Zion a stone that
    > > causes men to stumble, and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who
    > > trusts in him will never be put to shame." The stone is Jesus and he
    > > causes certain people to stumble. I also attract your attention to
    > > these words from Paul in first Corinthians: "Has God not made foolish
    > > the wisdom of the world.[...] For the foolishness of God is wiser than
    > > man's wisdom, [...]." Mr. Kirkly,
    > > be careful of worldly wisdom lest you stumble yourself.
    > >
    > > GB



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 08 2002 - 17:05:54 EST