Sorry for the length of time getting back to. The preparation for and the double sabbaths this weekend prevented me from a timely response.
Thank you for your three humble and heartfelt apologies and I apologize for any ungraciousness in tone or demeanor that I might have exhibited.
FP's have a bit of a quandary.
I'm not a fundamental protestant. I'm not even a protestant. You've raised a number of interesting issues which are probably not best answered in sound bites. In most cases you're attributing these same types of beliefs to me and in most cases it's not what I believe. So bear with me and I'll try to explain as fully as possible given the limited forum and the limited time we both have.
They insist that, since everyone in the new testament was an adult convert then all chr*stians must be adult converts. However, in the new testament chr*stianity was new and all its converts had to be intellectually converted. This is something today's FP's can't identify with because the vast majority of them were raised believing in all the tenets of chr*stianity, but since they must be "converted" as adults they have developed the "born again experience" as a mystical/emotional adult conversion for people who have been believing chr*stians all their lives. Thus the idea of having to be intellectually converted to chr*stianity is literally outside the FP worldview.
I agree completely that Christianity is more than just a mystical/emotional feeling. The process of conversion encompasses the heart, soul and mind. I agree completely that you must be intellectually converted. And being converted is impossible without the indwelling spirit of God.
It is for this reason that FP's know one and only one way to prove anything--by quoting bible verses. The idea that not everyone believes the Bible, that you must first use an argument external to the Bible itself in order to establish its authority before you can begin quoting it to prove anything, is simply alien to their world view.
USUALLY I don't engage in debate with Mormons, Catholics OR Jews exactly because they don't hold the bible to be their source of authority. That's why I said back in post 96: "I simply can't debate tradition. It's pointless." We don't have a common frame of reference.
But you pegged it on authority. When it comes to belief, there HAS to be an authority in which to place your trust and belief. Trusting in ourselves...our thoughts, feelings, emotions and logic is folly. We naturally don't have Godly wisdom, understanding or logic. We lack the capacity to understand and embrace Godly things.
Putting your faith in others thoughts, feelings, emotions and logic is even more of a folly. It's the blind leading the blind.
Scripture IS the guidebook for Godly living and behavior. It is HOW God speaks to us today. It is God's revelation to us. It's what he wanted preserved. Is it everything that God said and did? Of course not. There's no storage medium capable of holding that much information.
So I quote scripture to prove my points because MY thoughts and feelings are irrelevant. They don't mean jack. They're human based thought and human based reasoning.
Hence your refusal to argue in any other way or to "prove" anything in any other way than very large quotes from the nt in red, in the expectation that the reader (if he is one of the "elect") will experience "conviction." But what you don't realize is that the nt can't convict anyone who doesn't believe it is the word of G-d. You have to first prove that it is by arguments external to the nt itself. Once you have thus convinced your opponent that the nt is what you claim it is, then and only then can you prove points by merely quoting it.
This might be a valid viewpoint concerning some people, but not me. I'm not trying to convict or convert anyone. It's not my goal. In the grand scheme of thing I couldn't care less if you agree with what I'm putting down here. It's not my job to convert or convict anyone to what I believe. BUT.
But it IS my job to present the information. It IS my job to make sure the information is out there and available to those whom God is calling. Those who recognize that calling and heed it WILL be led to the truth by God. They'll study, they'll learn and they'll PROVE it to themselves.
I'm not sitting here thinking "Oh golly oh gee if Zionist Conspirator would be "saved" because of me that would be great!" It's not in my mind. I AM supremely confident that God IS going to "save" the vast majority of humankind. He promises this in scripture. I'm content to let God work things out in his own way in his own time. His plan gives this opportunity for redemption to everyone that has ever lived or will live.
Second, you evince an inability to even peek outside your own worldview for just a few seconds in order to defuse someone else's argument.
I don't have that inability. But arguments are best defused by truth, not by catering to someone elses worldview.
When I said that the fact that the Torah doesn't specify how sacrifices (or people) are to be "waved" or "heaved" and that therefore there must be an authoritative Tradition you assumed I meant that this was an excuse for people to make stuff up, because this is the only definition of "tradition" you know.
Well you're being kind of rough with your characterization. In that particular case I think that if it were that important as to the specific details that God would have caused it to be written down. I'm not saying that it's "bad" for an organization to come up with a "standard" way of doing things. That's good in a lot of ways.
I meant know such thing. I meant that obviously, by sheer logic, G-d must therefore have Himself given instructions as to how these ritual actions were to be performed. Oral Torah is just that Torah that was not written down, not stuff made up by people. But because of your argument with the Catholics and Orthodox you know only one definition of "tradition"--inauthentic stuff made up by people.
I am not saying that G-d's silence gives man a license to make stuff up. I'm saying that G-d obviously was not silent, that He must have specified how these things were to be done, and that this part of the Torah was not written down in the Scroll. This is not the same thing as "G-d didn't say, so we'll make something up." Have you ever read Deuteronomy 12:21 where G-d mentions having given instructions about slaughtering animals which are not found written down anywhere in the Torah?
It's not my position that God never said or did anything outside of scripture. Of course he did as I said. What's in question is whether or not tradition is in fact an accurate transmission of Godly wishes or whether it's been colored and influenced by the actions and desires of men. I say the latter.
At this point you may object that G-d would not say anything without having it written down in the Bible because that wouldn't be fair; not everyone would have the information. But Israel would have the information, and Israel is the only people the Torah was given to. The Torah was not given to mankind; the "ten commandments" weren't given to mankind--these are the exclusive heritage of Israel and no one else. Where did you ever get the idea that the Torah was given to all mankind?
I don't have that idea and I never stated that idea. You made an assumption based on your ignorance of my beliefs.
Rom 9:4 Who are Israelites; to whom [pertaineth] the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service [of God], and the promises;
Non-Israelites can join themselves to these covenants and promises through Christ.
But finally, we come to why any further argument with you is useless. You said that it doesn't matter what I (or by extension) anyone else believes; you simply believe that J*sus was the messiah. No reason given. You just believe.
Not giving a reason and not having a reason aren't the same things. I believe Jesus is the messiah because of the miraculous effect this belief has had on my thoughts, attitudes, emotions, life and my family. I can go into detail if you would like.
And as has often been pointed out, you can't reason a person out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place. Which raises the question of why you're trying to convert me or anyone else when you can't convert anyone. I've always wondered why Calvinists would try to convert anyone.
Understand again that I'm not trying to convert anyone. I can't. It's above my paygrade.
However, after defending your beliefs with no reason given other than that's what you believe (how would you like a mormon to say "I just believe in the book of mormon and that settles it"?) you make one very curious final statement. You don't believe anyone has it all right. That's a very liberal, archaeological way of looking at religion, but one that is inevitable when one rejects the idea that G-d gave no oral instructions. So does this mean that you may not have it all right either? In which case what are you arguing about? You'd best be correcting your own mistakes.
We're imperfect people. That's a fact. To posit that *any* organization has their viewpoint of God perfect is positing that everyone in that organization throughout history have been perfect vessels of God. Flawless transmitters of what God wishes and desires. We're flawed. I do believe that some views are closer to what God wants and these are views that most closely line up with scripture. The further away from scripture a view is, the more wrong it is.
Thank you for your graciousness and for your forgiveness.