B. McCausland wrote: Sorry, the doctrine of sin's remission (the covering of our sin) anchors from Eden's happenings to what all sound biblical circles adhere. It is perfectly right to view the applications of this doctrine in the context of dress also, as we use dress because of the Fall. -- The fact of God providing the robes in Eden to cover Adam and Eve, points to the fact that the shame of our sin requires covering physically as spiritually
Someone doesn't understand dualism. Smh
God provided a covering because Adam and Eve knew they were naked viz. they felt ashamed. They were naked in innocence and it was no problem! So nakedness itself clearly was not the issue.
Also previously they just had a covering of leaves, which no doubt you'd be aghast at. Just think how immodest just to have leaves covering the parts that caused them shame.
Do you suppose Eve feared that some man would lust after her?
You're not proving anything biblically, but providing humanistic reasoning.
Since you're so sure I change my moniker, you have obviously read my posts enough to know who you are interacting with despite any change of monikers. BTW I am not affirming or denying, just pointing to your absurdity.
B. McCausland wrote: This way of looking at the matter might not be the one of your persuasion, neither the persuasion prevailing in your circles, yet, may it be assured that outside this Forum, there are people who gladly value the position as shared. Take care
If there are other groups who believe false teaching then the false teaching must be right?
You hold to a limited dualism, limited only by you. Think on that for a moment and let it sink in.
Penned, Pennelope, Pennnnnned - whoever you are, why do you use so many monikers?
B. McCausland wrote: It has been already done. Spiritual understanding is the matter. It is common that people objecting to matters as this do it subject to personal disagreeable agendas of their own. So it is fine As to becoming a fool this is nothing new: Act 26:24 Sorry, but declaring Scripture's content should not be confused with 'Being wise in your own eyes' Please, refrain your speech, this is a Christian virtue. Thanks It is remarkable how much godly speech and respect is missing in opposing parties like yours. One has to suspect reasons why this is so. Take care
Translated into plain English, I have tried and no one can agree, but I'm spiritual and everyone else holds to humanistic reasoning. Look how saintly and holy I am. You're all stupid, but please don't call me a fool because that's not very Christian. You're all hypocrites and you all name call because you have an agenda.
Unprofitable Servant wrote: Two things, BMac, my posts were not absent of Scriptural thought and in case you missed it I showed Scriptural precedent for the times I used what you called humanstic reasoning. We must learn to rightly divide the Word of Truth and recognize Biblical principles when they are presented. Thanks
Well, you missed the theology of garments for starters. A very big mistake when dealing with someone like BM. lol
Jim Lincoln wrote: unfortunately the Anglican Church started out as syncretic and a compromise.
Charles Spurgeon wrote: the State Church, which the great reformers had planted, and which some of them had watered with their blood, presented the spectacle which went far to justify the sarcasm of an eminent writer, that she possessed "A Popish Liturgy, a Calvinistic Creed, and an Arminian Clergy."
But Jim Two ANGLICAN Liberal Bishops helped to write your NASB Greek text....
....even whilst CHS was preaching in the Tabernacle.
....then there is all that Popish influence coming into the modern versions, such as the NASB and the NIV from the Vaticanus text and Westcott and Hort's Popish convictions.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Yes, gentlemen, you do need some reading material...
Dr. Daniel Wallace wrote: ....to uphold as the only Holy Bible a translation that, as lucid as it was in its day, four hundred years later makes the gospel seem antiquated and difficult to understand. It takes little thought to see who is behind such a conspiracy.
But Jim You are still avoiding the simple fact that GOD used the KING JAMES VERSION for 400 years - and continues to do so - to teach the truth and build His Church.
But Jim You are still avoiding the simple fact that the Anglican Liberal Heretics Westcott andf Hort, who were very popish leaning - AND the Vaticanus RC text were used to form the NASB and other modern versions.
So you and Danny boy have failed to get your arguement off the ground.
BTW Tell Danny boy that the Word of God is never nor has ever been "antiquated"