Conclusion from Peru and Mexico

ESV Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

In recent days I have spent time in Lima and Sullana Peru and Mexico City and I have discovered that people by nature are the same. Man has a heart that is inclined to selfishness and idolatry. Sin abounds in the remotest parts of the land because the heart is desperately wicked. Thousands bow before statues of Mary and pray to her hoping for answers. I have seen these people stare hopelessly at Mary icons, Jesus icons, and a host of dead saints who will do nothing for them. I have talked with people who pray to the pope and say that they love him. I talked with one lady who said that she knew that Jesus was the Savior, but she loved the pope. Thousands bow before Santa Muerte (holy death angel) in hopes that she will do whatever they ask her. I have seen people bring money, burning cigarettes, beer, whiskey, chocolate, plants, and flowers to Santa Muerte in hopes of her answers. I have seen these people bowing on their knees on the concrete in the middle of public places to worship their idol. Millions of people come into the Basilica in Mexico City and pay their money, confess their sins, and stare hopelessly at relics in hope that their sins will be pardoned. In America countless thousands are chained to baseball games, football games, material possessions, and whatever else their heart of idols can produce to worship.

My heart has broken in these last weeks because the God of heaven is not honored as he ought to be honored. People worship the things that are created rather than worshiping the Creator. God has been gracious to all mankind and yet mankind has hardened their hearts against a loving God. God brings the rain on the just and unjust. God brings the beautiful sunrises and sunsets upon the just and unjust. God gives good gifts unto all and above all things he has given his Son that those who would believe in him would be saved. However, man has taken the good things of God and perverted them unto idols and turned their attention away from God. I get a feel for Jesus as he overlooked Jerusalem or Paul as he beseeched for God to save Israel. When you accept the reality of the truth of the glory of God is breaks your heart that people would turn away from the great and awesome God of heaven to serve lesser things. Moses was outraged by the golden calf, the prophets passionately preached against idolatry, Jesus was angered that the temple was changed in an idolatrous business, and Paul preached to the idolaters of Mars Hill by telling them of the unknown God.

I arrived back at home wondering how I should respond to all the idolatry that I have beheld in these last three weeks. I wondered how our church here in the states should respond to all of the idolatry in the world. What are the options? First, I suppose we could sit around and hope that people chose to get their life together and stop being idolaters. However, I do not know how that could ever happen apart from them hearing the truth. Second, I suppose we could spend a lifetime studying cultural issues and customs in hope that we could somehow learn to relate to the people of other countries. However, the bible is quite clear that all men are the same. Men are dead in sin, shaped in iniquity, and by nature are the enemies of God. Thirdly, we could pay other people or other agencies to go and do a work for us while we remain comfortably in the states. However, there is no way to insure that there will be doctrinal accuracy or integrity. If we only pay other people to take the gospel we will miss out on all of the benefits of being obedient to the mission of God. Lastly, we could seek where God would have us to do a lasting work and then invest our lives there for the glory of God. The gospel has the power to raise the dead in any culture and we must be willing to take the gospel wherever God would have us take it. It is for sure that our church cannot go to every country and reach every people group, so we must determine where God would have us work and seek to be obedient wherever that is.

It seems that some doors are opening in the Spanish speaking countries below us and perhaps God is beginning to reveal where we are to work. There are some options for work to be partnered with in Peru and there could be a couple of options in Mexico. The need is greater than I can express upon this paper for a biblical gospel to be proclaimed in Peru and Mexico. Oh, that God would glorify his great name in Peru and Mexico by using a small little church in a town that does not exist to proclaim his great gospel amongst a people who desperately need the truth.

I give thanks to the LORD for allowing me the privilege of going to these countries and broadening my horizons. The things that I have seen will be forever engraved upon my heart. I will long remember the pastors that I spent time with in Peru and I will never forget Adolfo who translated for me in Mexico. I will relish the time that I spent with Paul Washer and the others. When I think of church I will forever remember being on top of that mountain in Sullana at that church which had no electricity and no roof. I am convinced that heaven was looking down on that little church on top of that mountain and very few people on earth even know that it exist. Oh, God I pray that the things of this world will continue to grow dim and that God’s people will be caught up in his glorious presence.

Because of the truth: Pastor: J. Randall Easter II Timothy 2:19 "Our God is in heaven and does whatever He pleases."(Ps. 115:3) "He predestined us according to the good pleasure of His will."(Eph. 1:5) Those who have been saved have been saved for His glory and they are being made holy for this is the will of God. Are you being made holy? Spurgeon says, "If your religion does not make you holy it will damn you to hell."

FK: The answer to this is that Judas was never a sheep. He was a pretender.

And who decided that?

Oh, you know what I'm going to say... :)

FK: The argument has been made around here (I don't remember by whom) that none of the Apostles were true believers until Pentecost. While I'm not sure of that, if it is true, then Judas is certainly left out.

It was probably me. I said they were followers before they became believers. They certainly didn't display the courage they displayed after the Pentecost.

Yes, that's why I think that argument has some merit, even though I don't share that view. Just from my last post, you brought up John 17, and it says:

John 17:8 : For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them. They knew with certainty that I came from you, and they believed that you sent me.

This whole passage says to me that Jesus was praying for the disciples (along with all future believers of course :) AS true believers. As you say or imply it is inarguable that the Bible says that before Pentecost (virtually, if not) all of them BLEW IT big time. However, it is not clear to me at all whether these mistakes disqualified them as true believers.

FK: What you saw in the "Passion of the Christ" was the real deal. That was not overblown at all.

I doubt that. I don't know how much you know about medicine, but there is something called shock from blood loss. Never mind the fact that Jesus was afterwards throwin in the dungeon and then crowned with thorns that caused additional bleeding (head bleed a great deal), and was shown chained standing all night long. Under such circumstances (hypooxygenation, dehydration, hypovolemic and hypostatic shock) the kidneys and other organ functions would have simply shut down, FK.

I have no medical expertise at all. However, I did research the class I taught on this subject as a lawyer would. From what I remember I don't "think" I have any problems with the basics of what you say above, HOWEVER, that is not determinative. Any given person MIGHT very well succumb earlier under all the given conditions (my earlier point about the ravages of scourging). So what? We maintain that God was in full control of all of it from the beginning. Therefore, the human body of Jesus was going to last as long as God determined it was going to, regardless. As Aruanan correctly pointed out, they didn't break Christ's legs because they didn't NEED to. He was already gone before the "normal" time because of all that He went through. My research showed that the vast majority of crucifixion victims lasted much longer than the generally accepted three to six hours that Jesus apparently lasted.

He COULD have lasted six weeks up there, IF that is what God had predestined. The facts on the ground, as we are given them, support my contention that He was brutally mistreated, more so than others awaiting the same fate, and so He died sooner.

But don't you say in the same breath that the OT righteous didn't "really" know Jesus?

That is correct. The OT is the foreshadowing.

It doesn't compute to me that according to the OT God had one on one communication with the prophets, while "hiding" the Jesus you seem to say is only knowable in the NT

That is correct too. The OT God is an anthropomorphic, pseudo-pagan deity, more resembling Zeus then Christ. Clearly, in its long history, Judaism moved from being very pagan to being messianic.

Christ, on the other hand, is not a product of anthropomorphism of various prophets. We don't have to "imagine" Christ, or hear voices and see visions in a trans: we read what appear as eyewitness accounts of a living God walking and talking on earth.

And if they are not direct eyewitness accounts, the narratives are based on eyewitness accounts.

That is part of it, but He also came to SAVE His people Negative, FK. He came to offer salvation to all. Those who came to Him, responding to His call, are His by adoption.

Is the Christ who overturned the money-changers' tables the same Christ who did not condemn the adulteress EVEN THOUGH He knew that she was guilty (by the text)?

Unfortunately, the part of the adulteress (I imagine you are referring to John 7:53-8:11, better known as Pericope aduleterae ) was added at a later date; it never happened. It is not found in any of the earlier copies of John's Gospel. Sorry to burst your bubble. :)

The Gospels deal with intent, and doing anything for money is frowned upon. In fact, money is said to be the root of all evil. There is a passage where a man tries to buy his salvation and is rebuked by the disciples. And we all know the rich man and Lazarus story and the famous 'it is easier for a camel..." part.

Is the Christ who proclaimed the Law the same Christ who said that it is good to do good work on the Sabbath?

God didn't change. Christ simply interpreted the OT correctly (the way it should have been interpreted), again, emphasizing the intent. He didn't say that doing any work on a Sabbath is good. Saving a man's life, whose misfortune is not an intentional distraction from God on a Sabbath, is not the same as intentionally engaging in frivolous activities, and intentionally neglecting God.

But He also reminds us that the "eye-for-eye" rule is not the correct response because returning evil for evil doesn't produce good.

There is no multifaceted Christ. Christ is consistent. His message doesn't change. God doesn't change.

FK: ... If we agree that the rock was a person, then servants serve THAT person. The Pope serves Christ by serving the people who serve Christ, Who is the cornerstone upon which the Church of God was built.***

Mark: What it does is to emphasize that Peter is the vicar or the steward of the King. No Christian has ever claimed that the Pope is the Head of the Church (note that the monarch of England is the Head of the Church of England, though). The Pope is the servant, in succession, appointed to the stewardship of the Church until He comes again. (emphasis added)

While I am not a member of the Church of England and cannot speak for their beliefs :), I can say that many of the rest of us find it hard to accept your statement when we have things like this straight from the Catechism:

882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."402 "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."403 (emphasis added)

895 "The power which they exercise personally in the name of Christ, is proper, ordinary, and immediate, although its exercise is ultimately controlled by the supreme authority of the Church."427 But the bishops should not be thought of as vicars of the Pope. His ordinary and immediate authority over the whole Church does not annul, but on the contrary confirms and defends that of the bishops. Their authority must be exercised in communion with the whole Church under the guidance of the Pope. (emphasis added)

What are us poor Protestants supposed to think? :) I know that the "official" Latin position is that Christ is the head of the Church, but why do your documents not make that clear to all?

I know that the “official” Latin position is that Christ is the head of the Church, but why do your documents not make that clear to all?

You need to read the entire documents,Fk.

From the Catechism...
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P28.HTM

“Christ is the Head of this Body”

792 Christ “is the head of the body, the Church.”225 He is the principle of creation and redemption. Raised to the Father's glory, “in everything he [is] preeminent,”226 especially in the Church, through whom he extends his reign over all things.

793 Christ unites us with his Passover: all his members must strive to resemble him, “until Christ be formed” in them.227 “For this reason we . . . are taken up into the mysteries of his life, . . . associated with his sufferings as the body with its head, suffering with him, that with him we may be glorified.”228

794 Christ provides for our growth: to make us grow toward him, our head,229 he provides in his Body, the Church, the gifts and assistance by which we help one another along the way of salvation.

795 Christ and his Church thus together make up the “whole Christ” (Christus totus). The Church is one with Christ. The saints are acutely aware of this unity:

From LUMEN GENTIUM

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

“The Head of this Body is Christ. He is the image of the invisible God and in Him all things came into being. He is before all creatures and in Him all things hold together. He is the head of the Body which is the Church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He might have the first place.(60) By the greatness of His power He rules the things in heaven and the things on earth, and with His all-surpassing perfection and way of acting He fills the whole body with the riches of His glory

All the members ought to be molded in the likeness of Him, until Christ be formed in them.(62) For this reason we, who have been made to conform with Him, who have died with Him and risen with Him, are taken up into the mysteries of His life, until we will reign together with Him.(63) On earth, still as pilgrims in a strange land, tracing in trial and in oppression the paths He trod, we are made one with His sufferings like the body is one with the Head, suffering with Him, that with Him we may be glorified.(64)

From Him “the whole body, supplied and built up by joints and ligaments, attains a growth that is of God”.(65) He continually distributes in His body, that is, in the Church, gifts of ministries in which, by His own power, we serve each other unto salvation so that, carrying out the truth in love, we might through all things grow unto Him who is our Head.(66)”

The Jews accepted the Flood as historical fact, an act by God, just as they accepted the first Passover (as Jesus did). Here is another example where you appear to have Jesus purposely misleading His own people, in red letters no less!! Remember how Jesus at the end is supposed to be the lawyer that is going to make the other 99.99% of us look bad? You have Him pulling our worst tricks

You find that impossible? Yet you have no problem with the part of the OT where God sends "deceiving spirits" to mislead people into believing wrong things?!?

You have no problem believing that God gives some people the eyes and the ears to see and hear the truth, but by the same token, by withholding the spiritual sight and hearing, to deny or even mislead others?

Jesus has to work within Judaism. Had He questioned Judaism any further than He already did, He would have been rejected even by the closest of followers.

YES! BIBLICAL slavery was justified in SOME cases. A distinction was clearly made. Many people in those days voluntarily CHOSE to enter slavery to pay off debts, or win a woman, or whatever, etc

Gen. 17:12 speaks of an eigth-day old child that was bought. Do you believe it is morally right to buy children? Or adults? Orthodoxy reminds is that truth doesn't change and that what was true yesterday, is true today and will be true tomorrow, and was and will be true forever. We can't have evolving morality based on the same Bible, FK.

Slavery was not morally just 3,000 years ago any more than it can be morally just 3,000 years form now. It is never morally just to own a human being.

Protestants and Baptists "justified" slavery because it is considered morally right in the Bible, especially the Old Testament. When did it cease being morally just and why don't the so-called Bible-believing Christians campaign for it today? What happened to their convictions? Or are they just hiding their true feelings and "lying low" until "better" times?

I mean, the implications of your answer are shocking, but I do understand that Bible-believing Christians must bend everything in such a way as to avoid any perception of doubt of what's in the Bible.

When Americans think of "slavery" we only think of one thing, a very important thing because it is so woven into our history, but nonetheless there is more to the concept, especially in those days.

The KJV says "servant" but here is NIV

NIV uses many "attenuated" words and politically-correct forms. The Greek word is indentured servant, a slave (doulos). The Slavonic equivalent is rab (slave; modern Russian for slavery is rabstvo). The meaning hasn't changed.

We can become "slaves" of love for God, as we give up the world and dedicate our life to serving God. That is essentially different from the wordly slavery. In this case the "doulos" is used metaphorically and not literally—as in the OT. You are comparing apples and oranges.

But that would make Jesus a salesman instead of our omnipotent LORD GOD

Not only that, but a magician as well! :) Seriously, didn't the Apostles believe that He would be back within their lifetime? Sure they did because they misinterpreted what He said.

He could have just "zapped" their hearts (a la Paul!) and they would have believed anything He wanted them to believe, but He didn't. He taught instead. He wanted us to understand why it is okay to save a man's life even on a Sabbath. He wanted us to know that intent matters, that we should do things our of mercy and pure heart, and not be stuck on labels.

One of our parishioners was telling the priest during the social hour hat his sins would make a thick book and it would take him six months to confess them all. To which the priest (sorry Mark!) responded "That sounds rather Catholic to me. As far as I am concerned, it is much more important that the believer comes to me to confess in contrite heart than to list each and every sin he could think of."

It's not the fact that we sin by nature, but the fact that some sin in premeditation that makes sin a true sin. We all know we will sin throughout the day when we least expect it, but we should never leave the house with the intent to do something we know is morally wrong.

Kosta: And that could not have come from the nature (the world), because there is no love or mercy or compassion in the ways of the nature. They are something not of this world, but we are capable of if not by nature then by grace.

FK: How would you describe what you have said here as faith as distinguished from a philosophy?

The core belief of the Church is that we can become like God by grace and not by nature. It's a belief, not a rational opinion—based on another belief, namely that all good comes from God and not the Creation.

And, btw, there is a unicorn! Except he moved from Jupiter to Italy (that's why he is no longer pink; on Jupiter he wouldn't need the camouflage colors.). :)

All you have to do is believe! :)

The only problem is proving that it was by design and not by random chance...Get my point?

That's why we call it hope, But I do firmly believe (and know) that this would be a much, much better world for all if all mankind embraced what Jesus taught.

As you say or imply it is inarguable that the Bible says that before Pentecost (virtually, if not) all of them BLEW IT big time. However, it is not clear to me at all whether these mistakes disqualified them as true believers.

The question is whether they would have persevered had Christ not appeared before them. And if they were true believers, then why was it necessary for them to receive the Holy Spirit?

But the Bible contradicts (oh, it's that word again!) itself on when the Holy Spirit was received. Mark (12:36) says that David received the HS. Luke (1:15) says John the Forerunner (Baptist) was filled with the HS in the womb. According to Luke (1:45), also, his mother, Elisabeth was also filled with the HS.

Again, Luke (2:25) says that a man by the name Simeon was just and devout and that the HS was upon him. And in Acts (1:16), presumably Luke again, says that the HS spoke by the mouth of David.

Yet, John (7:39) says "The Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified." That verse leaves very little room for any exceptions.

So, the Gospels do not agree on this issue.

Whatever the case may be it is undeniable that, after the resurrection, the disciples become Apostles without fear, which is quite the opposite of how they acted before.

So, definitely a life-changing events took place for them to become transformed from followers who scooted like scared little bunnies when the chips fell down, to fearless and zealous announcers of the Gospel.

I don't think there is a skeptic in this world who can deny this.

The WCF says that we are all wholly inclined to all evil; it makes no sense to claim that the wholly evil can possibly find happiness in the Greatest Good (God).

It makes no sense given our born nature, true. However, the WCF recognizes that God changes the hearts of His beloved elect by His grace so that they may THEN find such happiness.

The only way that it makes sense is if we understand that God gives His Grace to all men and men can use that Grace in order to love and appreciate Him, if only for a time in the case of those who stray.

Logic does not demand that at all. Logic only demands that those who DO believe have been given grace.

Again, how can evil be happy embracing good?

It cannot be truly happy embracing true good. That is what the concept of regeneration is all about. God regenerates that which is evil into a new creation which is then able to embrace good (2 Cor. 5:17).

Fallible men reading fallible translations of Scripture producing infallibly saved elect?

It's amazing what God can accomplish when He sets His mind to something. :)

Is the Reformed Holy Spirit unable to infuse the elect with an infallible set of instructions?

The Reformed Holy Spirit is able to do anything the Reformed Holy Spirit wants to. And, as with all matters God, He makes choices.

The truth of the Bible is in the truthfulness of its authors. If they honestly perceived God in a way that is not Christ-like it is because they did not have full revelation, yet. No one did until Christ appeared. Claiming otherwise would make Christ less than the fullness of God's revelation.

It all goes back to whether one thinks that God had ANYTHING to do with the writing of the text (other than a mere suggestion that the authors write whatever they want). If a bunch of people just wrote down whatever and some in your Church decided what was truth and what was mostly truth, and what wasn't truth then one could take a license to pick and choose any scripture he wanted to believe in or not.

If, however, the scriptures are ACTUALLY HOLY, then it would be a much different story. In the latter case there would be no issue of what the authors perceived and got right or wrong. Holy is Holy.

That's why the OT is considered to be a gradual revelation, the forerunner. It's still God's revelation, though incomplete.

Since you are clear that you think that the OT strongly conflicts with the NT it appears you equate "incomplete" with untruth. "Holy" cannot be untrue.

FK: Yes, but what is the root word you are relying on? Strong's has "nacham", which in no way necessarily means "sorry" in the way you mean it.

Kosta: Strong's (#05162) definition of "nacham" as 1) to be sorry, be moved to pity, have compassion, 2) to be sorry, rue, suffer grief, repent, 3) to comfort oneself, be comforted, 4) to comfort oneself, ease oneself.

That's interesting, both my 2006 software version and my hardcopy 1995 version say the same thing for 5162:

OT:5162 nacham (naw-kham'); a primitive root; properly, to sigh, i.e. breathe strongly; by implication, to be sorry, i.e. (in a favorable sense) to pity, console or (reflexively) rue; or (unfavorably) to avenge (oneself):

KJV - comfort (self), ease [one's self], repent (-er-ing-self,-,).

I even did a brief Google search and could not find your definition. I guess we have different versions of Strong's. I imagine that could be a great source of disagreement. :)

WAIT A MINUTE, I just figured it out! :) I just found your definition on Crosswalk. The problem is that it uses Strong's number, but it is NOT a Strong's definition. The definition is from some other source I am not familiar with (Brown, Driver, Briggs, Gesenius Lexicon?) Does that square?

Nevertheless, following Reformed theology, the wickedness of mankind was there by His "plan" and according to His will, and regret or even "compassionate" killing (drowning compassionate? Try not breathing for a minute or so....) does not fit God who is always in control.

No, it makes perfect sense. God is always in control, and everything that happens does not necessarily match with the HUMAN idea of pleasure or happiness. While in full control, for example, on one level God was grieved (or regretted or was sorry, etc.) to watch His Son die on a cross, while on another level it pleased Him that His beloved children were saved. He was in full control.

[The Septuagint for Gen. 6:6] says God "took it to heart" (the Greeks don't use "regret" as "nacham" but "enthumemoai," to ponder, to deliberate"). But if this is all part of God's perfect "plan," what is there to "ponder?"

I don't know. While I do not defend the Septuagint, the word here does not particularly "offend" me. "Ponder" or "deliberate" means "think about". When is God ever not doing that? It does not mean to change one's mind.

"Atsab" (Strong's #06087) definition is 1) to hurt, pain, grieve, displease, vex, wrest, a) (Qal) to hurt, pain, b) (Niphal) to be in pain, be pained, be grieved, c) (Piel) to vex, torture, d) (Hiphil) to cause pain, e) (Hithpael) to feel grieved, be vexed.

I don't see your point here. Atsab is clearly associated with hurt or pain, as in when realizing one's mistake.

I checked and it is the same situation as before. The actual Strong's definition is this:

OT:6087 bx^u* `atsab (aw-tsab'); a primitive root; properly, to carve, i.e. fabricate or fashion; hence (in a bad sense) to worry, pain or anger:

KJV - displease, grieve, hurt, make, be sorry, vex, worship, wrest.

So, I hope that my statements make a little more sense now. Strong's says nothing about making any mistake.

Besides, what does the wickedness of man have to do with birds? And how does one "drown" birds? The whole story is ridiculous, FK, if taken literally as a matter of fact, for the implication is that the entire earth (including Mt. Everest!) was covered with water so that the even the birds eventually became exhausted and fell into the ocean and drowned!

I thought that all sides agreed that man's sin had a profound affect on the whole of "the world". But even if you don't agree, all of God's creation is still His to do with as He pleases.

It is not difficult at all to drown a bird if there is no where to land. :) I have no idea at all if the Flood actually covered the tippy-top of Mt. Everest. Since I can't imagine anything living up there it wouldn't seem like there was a need to (although need is irrelevant), but in any event, just the THOUGHT of Everest being completely covered does not bother or challenge my sensibilities in the LEAST. :)

The OT God is an anthropomorphic, pseudo-pagan deity, more resembling Zeus then Christ. Clearly, in its long history, Judaism moved from being very pagan to being messianic.

Then you must believe that Abraham, among others, either never lived or was a pagan? Jesus spoke many times of Abraham, and never in mythic terms:

Matt 8:11 : I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven.

Sounds to me like Judaism got off to a good enough start.

The Gospels deal with intent, and doing anything for money is frowned upon. In fact, money is said to be the root of all evil.

Nope, it is the LOVE of money that is a root of all kinds of evil (1 Tim. 6:10). There is nothing wrong with money itself, or the earning of it or having of it. Did Jesus not use money without sin? Look at the whole OT God-ordained system of sacrifices. Many times they involved money. When you tithe to your Church you don't later go to confession for having earned it, right? :)

Christ simply interpreted the OT correctly (the way it should have been interpreted), again, emphasizing the intent. He didn't say that doing any work on a Sabbath is good. Saving a man's life, whose misfortune is not an intentional distraction from God on a Sabbath, is not the same as intentionally engaging in frivolous activities, and intentionally neglecting God.

The theme of your post has been on "intent", but what is that as opposed to? Jesus said here that it was lawful to do good on the Sabbath (Matt. 12:12).

There is no multifaceted Christ. Christ is consistent. His message doesn't change. God doesn't change.

Being multifaceted has nothing to do with consistency or changing. They are two different subjects. satan is mono-faceted and consistent. People are multifaceted and some are consistent and some are changing. God is multifaceted AND consistent. This is what the whole of scripture reveals. It is God's revelation. It takes a human decision to declare God mono-faceted and only accept part of the revelation. For one to say that God is only love in the human sense is to deny that He is also just and that He has wrath, for example.

It all goes back to whether one thinks that God had ANYTHING to do with the writing of the text

Of course He had. :) What you are implying is that He actually wrote it!

But He didn't. The authors wrote it. They wrote what was revealed to them, but we all believe in imperfect manner.

If, however, the scriptures are ACTUALLY HOLY, then it would be a much different story. In the latter case there would be no issue of what the authors perceived and got right or wrong. Holy is Holy

Holy is holy because it's from God. Our faith is holy too, but we don't believe or wroship in a perfect manner. It's not God's truth that is imperfect; it's our perception that is.

Since you are clear that you think that the OT strongly conflicts with the NT it appears you equate "incomplete" with untruth.

No, incomplete is just that. A story you read can be true but incomple. If you hear there is a forest fire, but you are not told where, that doesn't make the story untrue. :)

We know that even the Holy Apostles didn't fully grasp who Jesus was and what His mission was. He revealed Himself to them, and they didn't fully grasp it until later.

"Holy" cannot be untrue

Agreed. :) But Holy can be misunderstood, or incompletely grasped.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.