Grailhunter, liberal or Bible-believer?

[Randy Kluth]

Per your request, I'm opening this thread to give you, Grailhunter, opportunity to "take me to school." I'd like to know if you consider yourself a believer in Liberal Christian Theology? I'd like to know if you hold to the conventional creeds of conventional Christianity? I'd like to know if you hold to the authority of the Scriptures as fully inspired by God, and reliable in terms of its divine authority? Thank you.

 

[Grailhunter]

Per your request, I'm opening this thread to give you, Grailhunter, opportunity to "take me to school." I'd like to know if you consider yourself a believer in Liberal Christian Theology? I'd like to know if you hold to the conventional creeds of conventional Christianity? I'd like to know if you hold to the authority of the Scriptures as fully inspired by God, and reliable in terms of its divine authority? Thank you.

I am the furthest thing from a liberal that you will ever meet.

I'd like to know if you hold to the conventional creeds of conventional Christianity?

With thousands of denominations...the concept of conventional gets lost quick.

I'd like to know if you hold to the authority of the Scriptures as fully inspired by God, and reliable in terms of its divine authority?

This is the opening statement that a cult leader will give you. Cause he has some extreme scriptures for you to believe so he can rope you in.
What else could the Bible be inspired by? Does the Bible have divine authority? Yes.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I am the furthest thing from a liberal that you will ever meet.




With thousands of denominations...the concept of conventional gets lost quick.



This is the opening statement that a cult leader will give you. Cause he has some extreme scriptures for you to believe so he can rope you in.
What else could the Bible be inspired by? Does the Bible have divine authority? Yes.

This isn't a "gotcha" exercise--just trying to understand if you view yourself as belonging to any camp. Some refuse to be labeled at all. I'm very suspicious of those--they tend to be mavericks and self-worshiping.

If you hold to the authority of Scriptures, good. If you reject theological liberalism, good. If you're just bothered by denominationalism, that was dealt with in your other post, which became "off topic" for you.

I wouldn't expect true and doctrinally-orthodox Christians to agree 100% on the language of the historic creeds, nor even 100% on the content of those beliefs. I don't myself.

However, the creeds provide a great measure of who stands within historic Christianity, or not. If you're afraid of speaking to any of these matters, then I question how open you are on any matters.

But I assure you, none of this is an attempt to stigmatize your beliefs, to make them appear to be anything other than what they are. I only wish to categorize them so as to deal with them openly, honestly, and in light of true Christian doctrine.

 

[Grailhunter]

This isn't a "gotcha" exercise--just trying to understand if you view yourself as belonging to any camp. Some refuse to be labeled at all. I'm very suspicious of those--they tend to be mavericks and self-worshiping.

If you hold to the authority of Scriptures, good. If you reject theological liberalism, good. If you're just bothered by denominationalism, that was dealt with in your other post, which became "off topic" for you.

No I am multi-denominational. Not expecting anyone of them to be completely right but good enough to stand and worship with.

 

[Randy Kluth]

No I am multi-denominational. Not expecting anyone of them to be completely right but good enough to stand and worship with.

You answered so quickly, I hadn't finished editting, which is, of course, okay with me. I just tend to post a lot of things, and then quickly edit it afterwards. Not the best way, I know...just a matter of convenience for me.

I began my adult Christian life in a non-denominational charismatic church. The former Lutheran pastor was kicked out of his Lutheran denomination for believing in charismatic experiences. So he went independent and non-denominational. Though he's now dead, his church is thriving and fairly large for its kind.

I personally believe that churches *must* separate, if one Christian group forms aberrant opinions about the Bible and the other Christian group wishes to hold to the traditional views about the Bible. "How can two walk together unless they be agreed?"

 

[Grailhunter]

You answered so quickly, I hadn't finished editting, which is, of course, okay with me. I just tend to post a lot of things, and then quickly edit it afterwards. Not the best way, I know...just a matter of convenience for me.

I began my adult Christian life in a non-denominational charismatic church. The former Lutheran pastor was kicked out of his Lutheran denomination for believing in charismatic experiences. So he went independent and non-denominational. Though he's now dead, his church is thriving and fairly large for its kind.

I personally believe that churches *must* separate, if one Christian group forms aberrant opinions about the Bible and the other Christian group wishes to hold to the traditional views about the Bible. "How can two walk together unless they be agreed?"

I am not deducting for mistakes and you can always add. And a good part of the time I am watching a western or hallmark while I am typing so I have to review and edit myself.

I understand the agreement thing to a point. Then again belief control in the pews in any church is a pipe dream.
And we have one thing in common, Holy Ghost churches are my favorite.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I am not deducting for mistakes and you can always add. And a good part of the time I am watching a western or hallmark while I am typing so I have to review and edit myself.

I understand the agreement thing to a point. Then again belief control in the pews in any church is a pipe dream.
And we have one thing in common, Holy Ghost churches are my favorite.

That's surprising to me, in view of what I read from you on the other thread. But I'm glad to know it. I don't go to my original charismatic church, but have been attending Assemblies of God churches, and other Pentecostal churches for the last--well, since I got out of juvenile detention in 1970. It took me about 6 months to figure out that detention is not where I want to be!

I went back to my roots, though I didn't yet know anything about the power of the Holy Spirit personally and in our lives. I soon discovered, however, that one of my best friends was now a "Jesus People." He played for me the 1st Contemporary Christian album I'd ever heard of, the 1st album by "Love Song." Then I began to meet with the "Jesus People" in my county, a rather small group at the time--I don't know if there were any others.

I came to the recognition that most of the Jesus People were fairly unlearned in Scriptures, and fell into a neat little Charismatic package. I was bound to have some disagreements with them. Today I have a number of disagreements with typical Pentecostal beliefs, though I've been to their churches for a very long time.

I don't shy from disagreements. Honesty demands we not fall in line and become clones of somebody else. We need to be authentic witnesses to Christ. And we can only do that by relating true experiences in our own lives--and not mimic what others do or teach. We can pick up their teaching and examples only if we can relate to it ourselves.

 

[Grailhunter]

Assemblies of God churches, and other Pentecostal

There is a branch of Assemblies of God Churches called Glad Tidings that I like and of course Pentecostals are great.

 

[Randy Kluth]

There is a branch of Assemblies of God Churches called Glad Tidings that I like and of course Pentecostals are great.

Happy to hear it. Now I'd like to know how you came to the beliefs you have about the Law? Do you think God gave the Law in corrupt form? What makes you say the negative things you've said about the Law on the other thread?

And what prompts you to say things like, "I'm going to school you?" Where I come from, this is just a little of our "humanness" coming out at times--something that we should not really be proud of.

Perhaps we just haven't had enough time to know where each of us stands on anything? So this is our opportunity to get things straight if we started out a bit off-beat....

 

[Grailhunter]

Happy to hear it. Now I'd like to know how you came to the beliefs you have about the Law? Do you think God gave the Law in corrupt form? What makes you say the negative things you've said about the Law on the other thread?

Lets put this in context. I grew up with the Jews. When I say I would gladly die defending Israel with a smile on my face, that is completely true. I studied Judaism at the Jewish Studies at American University in Washington DC and took courses and video seminars from Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

It is not that I do not like the Jews or the Old Testament. It is what it is and some of what we were discussing I was quoting scriptures. When I quote scriptures that people do not like they think I wrote them! Paul considered the Mosaic Law a curse, theologians refer to it as the curse of the Mosaic law. It is truth not a dislike. Truth can be shocking. But what is the alternative.

And what prompts you to say things like, "I'm going to school you?"

For one, I am the guy that can do it. If you want to go one on one on the Bible, Christian theology, and Christian history I am your huckleberry. Very well educated in three countries. Call me an advanced student...LOL...My first Christian collage I started when I was 15 year old...Could have started at 14 but had some family matters.

You talk and we will go from there.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Lets put this in context. I grew up with the Jews. When I say I would gladly die defending Israel with a smile on my face, that is completely true. I studied Judaism at the Jewish Studies at American University in Washington DC and took courses and video seminars from Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

It is not that I do not like the Jews or the Old Testament. It is what it is and some of what we were discussing I was quoting scriptures. When I quote scriptures that people do not like they think I wrote them! Paul considered the Mosaic Law a curse, theologians refer to it as the curse of the Mosaic law. It is truth not a dislike. Truth can be shocking. But what is the alternative.

I wish you'd stop playing the role of the "misunderstood" intellectual. I'm far too learned in the Scriptures to be surprised by a particular view of the Law, and I'm completely familiar with Paul's teaching on the Law. You've said nothing that surprises me at all, and nothing you've said indicates to me you have any "wild card" still in your hand.

For one, I am the guy that can do it. If you want to go one on one on the Bible, Christian theology, and Christian history I am your huckleberry. Very well educated in three countries. Call me an advanced student...LOL...My first Christian collage I started when I was 15 year old...Could have started at 14 but had some family matters.
You talk and we will go from there.

Okay, so you're an A student. Let's see how well you do when you actually explain what you believe. I said:

Now I'd like to know how you came to the beliefs you have about the Law? Do you think God gave the Law in corrupt form? What makes you say the negative things you've said about the Law on the other thread?

As I told you, the "curse" of the Law is to be understood from Paul as the curse of being unable to be saved through the Law. That is, eternal life was not accessible through the Law, no matter how hard one tried.

This is the "curse" of the Law. So do you still think the Law is a kind of "mistake" God made in starting out with fallen Man, or actually a planned process intended to lead to Christ's death on the cross? If I'm mischaracterizing how you view it, then I'm asking you to put me straight, and explain what you really mean by the statements you've made?

 

[Randy Kluth]

Grailhunter, though I find your credentials interesting, they don't impress me as much as spiritual virtues like being humble, submissive, and serving others. Remember, knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.

That being said, there's nothing more that I enjoy than going "one on one" with you on the Bible and various matters subject to interpretation. Hopefully, we can uplift one another?

I believe Paul and the Apostles saw the Law as a covenant that had been irrevocably broken. The same had happened in the time of the Assyrian and Babylonian judgments, though observance of the Law remained on "life support." Observance continued with the promise that the full display of the Law would be restored with the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem.

But when Jesus died, there was no more hope of reconstituting the covenant of Law. It was dead and gone. As such, the Law was intended, by God, to be a temporary provision until Christ came and completed the Law of God in a brand new covenant. The principles of righteousness under the Law remained. But the shadows that symbolized the redemption of Christ went away with the actual redemption of Christ in history.

So none of the Law was, in my view, a mistake or some deficient display of what God was offering to Israel. Rather, it was a preliminary means of remaining in covenant with God until Christ could come and provide something apart from the unsatisfying efforts of men to provide for their own forgiveness. When Christ came, Israel no longer had to offer animal sacrifices, and they no longer had to do so repeatedly and without any hope of eternal life by means of them.

So this is how I view the Law and your claim that Paul saw the Law as a "curse." It was not a statement of the deficiency of the Law in terms of its being caked in pagan practices. No, it was a statement in the opposite direction, that paganism was wrong, and that the very inclination towards paganism itself needed something greater than fallen Man himself could offer.

 

[Grailhunter]

I wish you'd stop playing the role of the "misunderstood" intellectual.

LOL People have issues with smart people. LOL Like Biden said, "I am sick and tired of smart guys!" Now we have a stupid president, thank you.

I'm far too learned in the Scriptures to be surprised by a particular view of the Law

LOL Then why was I having to correct nearly every sentence you posted?

Now I'd like to know how you came to the beliefs you have about the Law? Do you think God gave the Law in corrupt form? What makes you say the negative things you've said about the Law on the other thread?

I gave you scriptures, so don't say I did not answer you. I try to be patient with "the thick headed" but ya know it is like the scriptures do not matter to you. Just the ones you like...maybe...you were not posting many New Testament scriptures. My beliefs about the Mosaic Law come from the New Testament. And see this is another thing....people think it makes them look all godly to defend the Law, but I have only met a few that know the 613 Mosaic Laws.
(scriptures do not matter to you....don't get me wrong, you are not the only one that only considers the scriptures they like.)

As I told you, the "curse" of the Law is to be understood from Paul as the curse of being unable to be saved through the Law. That is, eternal life was not accessible through the Law, no matter how hard one tried.

That is mostly true. The curse is a rather long topic. It is that curse from the ministry of death, engraved on stones that Christ freed us from. Is the Law a mistake? Is it a corrupt form? Could Yahweh have stated Christian morals from Mt. Sinai? Could Christ and the Apostles denounced slavery in their time? Could they have elevated the status of women in society and the church to equals in their time? Could they have stopped the practice of father's choosing their daughter's husbands in their time. Could Christ and the Apostles have stopped the practice of polygamy in their time? Could they have instituted something as simple as a requirement for a wedding ceremony in their time? I know fundamentalists do not like the word evolution, but it appears that morality was God driven, but it evolved, and continued to evolve past the biblical era.

Grailhunter, though I find your credentials interesting, they don't impress me as much as spiritual virtues like being humble, submissive, and serving others. Remember, knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.

I do not blame you and those credentials are just the tip of iceberg. But what you believe means nothing to me, so we are even.

I believe Paul and the Apostles saw the Law as a covenant that had been irrevocably broken. The same had happened in the time of the Assyrian and Babylonian judgments, though observance of the Law remained on "life support." Observance continued with the promise that the full display of the Law would be restored with the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem.

The Covenant was irrevocably broken, in more than one way. But you will not find a lot of support in the NT for the notion that the problem with the law was that it could be followed by most, but they chose not to. The most positive affect the Law had on the Israelite community was to introduce them to God and stabilize their society in a very primitive and cruel era.

But when Jesus died, there was no more hope of reconstituting the covenant of Law. It was dead and gone

You say this, but I am going to assume that you know that the Old Covenant is still in effect for the Jews. They are not in between
Covenants. Paul made this clear even about the Mosaic Law.

But when Jesus died, there was no more hope of reconstituting the covenant of Law. It was dead and gone. As such, the Law was intended, by God, to be a temporary provision until Christ came and completed the Law of God in a brand new covenant. The principles of righteousness under the Law remained. But the shadows that symbolized the redemption of Christ went away with the actual redemption of Christ in history.

This is too big a topic we will have to address this on its own sometime.

So this is how I view the Law and your claim that Paul saw the Law as a "curse." It was not a statement of the deficiency of the Law in terms of its being caked in pagan practices. No, it was a statement in the opposite direction, that paganism was wrong, and that the very inclination towards paganism itself needed something greater than fallen Man himself could offer.

I am not sure what you are trying to get at here, but Paul considered the Mosaic Law a curse because it was what separated God and Man...that was the reason for the curtain...veil. An insurmountable barrier that prevented a relationship with God and any chance of salvation and or the reward of heaven. Because the Law could not be kept....breaking one Law meant you broke them all and one "broke law" wrote you off for the rest of your life.

 

[Randy Kluth]

LOL People have issues with smart people. LOL Like Biden said, "I am sick and tired of smart guys!" Now we have a stupid president, thank you.

But I'm not having an issue with a "smart person." This is a discussion forum. I'm challenging some of the statements you made, which appear to be in error, which appear to be a misinterpretation of some of Paul's statements.

LOL Then why was I having to correct nearly every sentence you posted?

You haven't corrected anything I've said, except that I was unable to put together your aberrant statements with the fact you claim to be conservative and spiritual. You still don't sound very spiritual to me. But that is between you and God. I'm just trying to get past your talk about yourself to get to the issues.

I gave you scriptures, so don't say I did not answer you. I try to be patient with "the thick headed" but ya know it is like the scriptures do not matter to you.

You see, you're not really very appreciative of "spiritual things," are you? I've never said I don't appreciate the Scriptures. Again, you give curt statements about your beliefs, when I asked for how your particular theology of the Law evolved. I started out explaining how sects in Christianity evolved *before* dealing with the specifics of any particular issue. You have said very little up to now. You said I should "talk first." So you've proven nothing to date, and have only given Scriptures which can be interpreted different ways.

All I really know is that you've misinterpreted Paul's statement that the Law is deficient.

Just the ones you like...maybe...you were not posting many New Testament scriptures. My beliefs about the Mosaic Law come from the New Testament. And see this is another thing....people think it makes them look all godly to defend the Law, but I have only met a few that know the 613 Mosaic Laws.

God Himself defended the Law, while it was in effect. And it remains as a witness to the character of God. You tend to use the Law to trash God's character. That's the notion that you need to correct or own up to.

(scriptures do not matter to you....don't get me wrong, you are not the only one that only considers the scriptures they like.)

You really have a chip on your shoulder, don't you?

That is mostly true. The curse is a rather long topic. It is that curse from the ministry of death, engraved on stones that Christ freed us from. Is the Law a mistake? Is it a corrupt form? Could Yahweh have stated Christian morals from Mt. Sinai? Could Christ and the Apostles denounced slavery in their time? Could they have elevated the status of women in society and the church to equals in their time? Could they have stopped the practice of father's choosing their daughter's husbands in their time. Could Christ and the Apostles have stopped the practice of polygamy in their time? Could they have instituted something as simple as a requirement for a wedding ceremony in their time? I know fundamentalists do not like the word evolution, but it appears that morality was God driven, but it evolved, and continued to evolve past the biblical era.

What you're doing is equating cultural values with divine morality. God's tolerance of the fallen human condition was imperative if God was ever to instruct them in righteousness. Dealing with them as they were was not a statement of God's ideal from the beginning, but a concession to the need to deal with human beings in their fallen condition in order to redeem them.

Slavery was a product of sin, but was not sin itself. So God tolerated a condition He did not originally want, but never stated it was a change in His original ideals for Man. The fact we will be reconstituted in new glorious bodies indicates that God does *not* like conditions as they presently are, even though He views the saints in their present condition as righteous people.

I do not blame you and those credentials are just the tip of iceberg. But what you believe means nothing to me, so we are even.

?

The Covenant was irrevocably broken, in more than one way. But you will not find a lot of support in the NT for the notion that the problem with the law was that it could be followed by most, but they chose not to. The most positive affect the Law had on the Israelite community was to introduce them to God and stabilize their society in a very primitive and cruel era.

That is positively contradicted by the fact God gave *all* of Israel the Law. That is, He expected *all* of them to follow the Law. He could not have expected that they could not follow the Law if He gave it to them at all!

So if Israel did not, in the end, follow the Law, it was their choice not to. It's as simple as that.

You say this, but I am going to assume that you know that the Old Covenant is still in effect for the Jews. They are not in between
Covenants. Paul made this clear even about the Mosaic Law.

Ah, so now I know what I believe to be your problem. You think the Old Covenant is still in effect for the Jews? For the record, I believe that is completely contrary to NT teaching.

This is too big a topic we will have to address this on its own sometime.

None of this is too big for me. I've been dealing with it, little by little, for a long time. If you weren't so arrogant, I could perhaps assist you in learning how to piece things together properly. After all, revelation comes to those who humbly submit to it, in any way God desires to do this--not to the arrogant who claim they already have it intrinsically.

I am not sure what you are trying to get at here, but Paul considered the Mosaic Law a curse because it was what separated God and Man...that was the reason for the curtain...veil. An insurmountable barrier that prevented a relationship with God and any chance of salvation and or the reward of heaven. Because the Law could not be kept....breaking one Law meant you broke them all and one "broke law" wrote you off for the rest of your life.

That is the standard explanation, which is also true. However, to fully understand this, you should also understand the positives about the Law. After all, King David wrote a huge Psalm dedicating virtually every verse to a praise of the Law.

Those who separate the Law and Grace into two categories are correct to do so, but often fail to understand also how they are related. If you can come down a little off of your high horse, I might be able to help you with this. I'm not claiming superiority over you--I just have a breadth of knowledge about it, having dedicated my life to it. And it has cost me dearly. It, more than anything, costs us our pride. So begin by dropping that. These things should not be issues between brothers of the same faith.

 

[Heart2Soul]

Threads are not to be about any specific member...this is targeting and harrassment.
It appears only the 2 of you are involved here.
Please take it to a PM and let's not tie up the forums and website with personal platforms towards one another