On the three person Trinity at Christmastime [New Church, Open]

In the Writings there are well over two hundred references to different passages in Paul's epistles, most of which are used to confirm New Church teachings.

Very simple - cherry picking.

Thus Swedenborg calls his works, "useful books for the church" (AE 815:2).

But not scripture - very telling and proving Dr Martin's point.

Who chose the books for his Bible? The fact is that men did.

False again - misrepresentation of Christian theology. The books were chosen by God and led men via the Holy Spirit to collect them and sustain them as scripture.

At least we believe that the Lord through Swedenborg has defined our canon.

Or at least that is what borg claims, but given that he elevates his writings to that of scripture tells otherwise.

This is from 1986 and since we are more open to canon - we talk about Romans 5-8 in Bible Studies (I just checked my notes) - we talk about how these Scriptures have been twisted and used to justify all sorts of false teaching, not from just "Dr" Walter Martin - and present how, when understood rightly, Pauline Epistles in total support the same Christianity we all know.

Spin doctoring by borg. Clearly since Christianity rejects borgian mysticism, Pauline Epistles reject borgism and supports Christianity.

I have plenty of material that refutes it and actually makes him look very foolish.

If it is anything like the drivel you post here, I'd be careful about who is looking foolish.

Another Dave thread?

A lightweight MORMON in disquise?

Thus Swedenborg calls his works, “useful books for the church” (AE 815:2). This in itself places Mr. Martin in a curious position. How could Swedenborg detest the epistles of Paul and yet call them “useful books for the church” and quote them as confirming passages in the Writings?”

Your posting of this refutation merely shows the specious nature of it, and will end up exposing more of Borgs deception. The premise behind his polemic here is that by calling Pauline epistles “useful” then they do not challenge Borg’s, but which is as logical as holding that since devil found the writings of Moses “useful” (Mt. 4) then they do not contradict him!

The truth is that the devil knows what power is, and like a thief who finds a policeman’s badge useful, both he and Borg appropriate it for their own unScriptural ends.

And in so doing the devil and Borg also know how to wrest things out of texts to serve their end, and to disallow authority of things that are too difficult, as well as give authority to their own words. Thus Borg engages in highly allegorical and esoteric readings of Scripture, while denying the full inspiration of much of Scripture while making his own writings to be the Word of God.

Nor can you equate the 66 book canon of Protestants with the 36 book canon of the Borg, as the former (which as the last thread substantiated, had its OT basis in Jewish acceptance from of old, and the NT with the majority esteem of the early church, nor do Prots hold to Luther’s canon of Scripture proper) was essentially a result of progressive supernatural establishment in community, while the latter was the decision of one 18th century man, and who rejected books which the NT Christian church affirmed.

Not surprisingly, Proverbs is one, which James and Peter both qute from, stating, “God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.” (Prv. 3:34; Ja. 5:6; 1Pt. 5:5)

And Borgs basis for exclusion was based on a type of highly allegorical and esoteric sense which more resembles Roy Masters more than of the Master and His apostles, denying the vicarious atonement being just one example.

However, while the Lord in the gospels excluded marriage as being in Heaven for the redeemed, Borg he concurs with Muslims and Mormons in that he sees the “That the Mahometan heaven [versus the Christian one] is distinguished into two, the inferior and the superior, I have heard from themselves: and that in the inferior heaven they live with several wives and concubines as in the world; but that those who renounce concubines and live with one wife, are elevated into the superior heaven.”

In contrast,

“Since those Christians who marry several wives, commit not only natural but also at the same time spiritual adultery, it follows that the condemnation of Christian polygamists after death is more grievous than that of those who commit only natural adultery,” which appeared to him “in hell as lying in warm water in the recess of a bath.” (Conjugial Love 343, 339

But Christian can divorce, not only because of of fornication, (which includes gross immodesty) and actual abandonment, but under the separation clause they can engage in concubinage (not in the same bed) because the spouse has a contagion which may prove to be fatal, such as leprosy, as well as things which make for no sociability such as noxious vapors or breath. Or conditions of “total faintness of body, and defect of strength,” that of paralysis of motion.. Or vitiated states of mind, which are just causes of separation from the bed and the house, are madness, frenzy, furious wildness, actual foolishness and idiocy, loss of memory, and the like.” (ibid 470)

Have to run, be back in a few God willing.

Interestingly, you omit addressing the documented deceit, fraud and lies of the good "Dr" Martin. His 1965 book did more to destroy Christianity in America than any other single tool of the devil. He himself built a true cult following with his damnable book by calling other upright religions 'cults' - all over! Look at them all! Meanwhile, he was jetting all over the globe on the lecture circuit raking in royalties... 'Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit' indeed!

His personal attacks of Swedenborg are laughable - like he knew the man and was there!

So now that I'm well aware of the source of your material - the red, fiery dragon in Revelation - the serpent of old - I now have a good grasp of what precisely I'm dealing with.

Vicarious Atonement (Grant Schnarr - 1986)

Here Mr. Martin quotes one of the stronger statements in the Writings about the erroneous doctrine of the vicarious atonement found in the former Christian Church. Here the Writings ask, "Who does not know that God is essential compassion and mercy . . . and who does not hereby see that it is a contradiction to assert that mercy itself or goodness itself can heal man from anger, become his enemy, turn Himself away from him and determine on his damnation, and still continue to be the same Divine Being or God? . . . The notion that God can impute the righteousness and merits of His Son to an unjust man who supplicates it from faith alone is also a mere human invention." (This is from Brief Exposition 61, which is quoted in full, along with Brief Exposition 62, 65 and several other brief quotes from the Writings.)

Martin replies to this by saying. "Swedenborg's denial of the vicarious nature of the Atonement needs no serious refutation in the light of such passages as Isaiah 53, Matthew 20:28, Mark 10:45 and I Peter 2:24."12 If we look at the passages referred to by Mr. Martin we can see what he is talking about, namely, where he would confirm the traditional Christian doctrine of the atonement. The Isaiah passage serves as an illustration. Some of it reads. "Surely He has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed Him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted.

But He was wounded for our transgressions . . . and by His stripes we are healed . . . and the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all" (Isaiah 53:4-6). It even says here, "it pleased the Lord to bruise Him" (Isaiah 53:10), and also "He bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors" (Isaiah 53:12).

With most of this passage I fail to see where the New Church doctrines are in disagreement with the sense of the letter of the Word. Surely, we believe the Lord bore our griefs and carried our sorrows, that He bore our iniquities, and because of what He accomplished on earth, we were redeemed, even brought back, as it were, from the slavery of hell. The Writings teach that the Lord carried all the hereditary evil of mankind, that He fought against all of the hells and suffered through the worst of temptations. He saved us in a very real way. Thus, the Writings and Isaiah 53 (and for that matter, the other passages cited by Mr. Martin) are in harmony.

Again, we say to Mr. Martin, instead of being opposed to the Word of God, the New Church doctrines are opposed to traditional Christian interpretation of the Word of God. Man was indeed redeemed from the slavery of the hells but not from God's wrath. Man was indeed saved from certain destruction, but man today isn't saved by simply acknowledging and believing in an historical event which took place almost two thousand years ago.

There is the question, however, of why Jehovah appears to be angry in the Old Testament, and sometimes asks for recompense. We know very well that this is the case. We also know that this is an appearance. And if one would use his common sense he could see that this is simply an appearance, and that there must be a deeper meaning or explanation. If confronted with this question we should appeal to common sense. Again, those who are confirmed in their beliefs will not listen to common sense (see AR 564), but there are always those on the sidelines who will listen.

The real question to be asked is, Can God be angry? Even as the Writings ask, Can love itself hate or desire that another suffer? One of the new members of the Chicago Group (who came from a fundamentalist background) put it like this, "A God who would take pleasure in the sacrifice of His own Son is no God of mine. If that is God I think I'd rather be in hell." In our world today people are sincerely looking for rational, common sense teachings about religion. People are tired of being told that God is angry and God condemns. Thus, using and confirming passages from the Word is an effective means of not only defending the Heavenly Doctrines but also teaching them to inquirers.

Grant can be contacted directly on his Facebook page at: Grant Schnarr - author Refer to the NCL 1986 article on the Cult Question

I really don't see your point about Conjugial Love. I can offer you this:

Swedenborg's whole foundation is that marriage is between one man and one woman. Marriage and family are the cornerstone to New Church communities... I can't think of the last time I've heard of divorce - we have a thriving marriage ministry. Kids stay with the Church. Marriage is founded on mutual compatible partnership.

I look at the fundie teaching that marriage only exists on earth and see why the majority of kids today are born out of wedlock - what's the point? Just a legal hassle on divorce, which happens more often than not. My fundie sister-in-law's kids are a mess - my own grandnephew is illegitimate... sex, drugs and rock and roll. Youngest nephew dropped out of school. Unmitigated disaster. They know where to find me when they want to.

Conjugial Love is my all time favorite of all the Writings. It has helped us fix our own marriage and keep it on the Lord's path. A copy should be in every home - America would certainly be a better place.

Interestingly, you omit addressing the documented deceit, fraud and lies of the good "Dr" Martin. His 1965 book did more to destroy Christianity in America than any other single tool of the devil. He himself built a true cult following with his damnable book by calling other upright religions 'cults' - all over!

Walter Martin did more to destroy Christianity in America than any other single tool of the devil? Well, with that, which is consistent with your relegating those who oppose you here as "chaff," you have simply further indicted yourself as being on the side of cult deception, and outside Christianity.

As this book which you assert tears down Christianity does not include any Catholic or historical Protestant groups, but exposes

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Jehovah's Witnesses, Islam, Christian Science, Theosophy, Buddhism, the Unification church, the Bahá'í Faith, Unitarian Universalism, Scientology, and Seventh-Day Adventism, Spiritism, and various New Age and Eastern religions,

then we can understand why you identify with the above cults as representing true Christianity. And while there is criticism on some details his work (and some think he was too ecumenical, and i can fault him on some things), the real sympathy you will get is from liberals and the cults he exposes, from the LDS to the Watchtower society.

But despite your attempt to divert attention to Martin, who is just one apologist who exposes you, the fact remain that Borg presents a radical different Jesus, Spirit and gospel, as stated in posts on previous threads.

More details will follow if needed.

It took the Church some 4 centuries to express our understanding of the Trinity and nature of the Godhead in a systematic theology and agreed doctrine.

Instead of arguing it, build from upon the shoulders of those who shared the same interest.

Study the doctrines of the Trinity and the Hypostatic Union and Kenosis.

. Man was indeed redeemed from the slavery of the hells but not from God's wrath....Jehovah appears to be angry in the Old Testament, and sometimes asks for recompense. We know very well that this is the case. We also know that this is an appearance. And if one would use his common sense he could see that this is simply an appearance, and that there must be a deeper meaning or explanation. If confronted with this question we should appeal to common sense. Again, those who are confirmed in their beliefs will not listen to common sense (see AR 564), but there are always those on the sidelines who will listen

Well, there you have it. The Holy Spirit of Scripture states that "God judgeth the righteous, and God is angry with the wicked every day. " (Psalms 7:11)

"The Lord at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath. He shall judge among the heathen, he shall fill the places with the dead bodies; he shall wound the heads over many countries. " (Psalms 110:5-6)

"And the Lord was angry with Solomon, because his heart was turned from the Lord God of Israel, which had appeared unto him twice, " (1 Kings 11:9)

"But a prophet of the Lord was there, whose name was Oded: and he went out before the host that came to Samaria, and said unto them, Behold, because the Lord God of your fathers was wroth with Judah, he hath delivered them into your hand, and ye have slain them in a rage that reacheth up unto heaven. " (2 Chronicles 28:9)

"When God heard this, he was wroth, and greatly abhorred Israel: " (Psalms 78:59)

"Remember, and forget not, how thou provokedst the Lord thy God to wrath in the wilderness: from the day that thou didst depart out of the land of Egypt, until ye came unto this place, ye have been rebellious against the Lord. " (Deuteronomy 9:7)

"And they left the house of the Lord God of their fathers, and served groves and idols: and wrath came upon Judah and Jerusalem for this their trespass. " (2 Chronicles 24:18)

"But they mocked the messengers of God, and despised his words, and misused his prophets, until the wrath of the Lord arose against his people, till there was no remedy. " (2 Chronicles 36:16)

"In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; " (2 Thessalonians 1:8-9)

To which dozens more can be added, but to believe that, and that God, because He is, in a word, love, hates sin, and ultimately provokes God to anger (sin being the opposite of God's love), and in His justice punishes sin, thus requiring the most costly atonement for forgiveness, is rejected as being against "common sense" to those who follow a man who claims such unique esoteric enlightenment as to condemn all other churches (though their sympathies lie with cults who claim the same kind of elite status as the borg).

Instead of believing that the Lord literally became our scapegoat, bearing our sins in His own body on the cross, and making Himself an offering, a ransom, for sin, so that we have redemption thru His sinless shed blood, without which is no remission - as more than Paul taught - we are to believe that,

By bearing iniquities nothing else is meant than enduring grievous temptations; and His allowing the people to do with Him as they had done with the Word, and to treat Him in the same manner, because He was the Word. (Doctrine of The Lord, paragraph 15

"The Lord willed to undergo death and to rise again the third day to the end that He might put off everything human that He had from the mother and might put on the Divine Human." (Apocalypse Explained, paragraph 899.14; Lord, paragraph 35)

And that "He gradually made the human in Himself Divine, uniting Himself with the Father." (True Christian Religion, paragraph 261) - http://www.quantuminteractive.net/quantuminteractive/sd/swedenborg/core-beliefs/life-was-jesus-crucified.htm

And that " He imputed it to him for righteousness" refers to Jesus, " that is, it was added to the righteousness that He was becoming, as a continual increase, until He became pure righteousness." [Arcana Coelestia, 1813.

He also tells us that,

Mention is often made in the Word of "the righteous," of "righteousness," and of "to be made righteous;" but what is specifically signified by these expressions is not yet known. The reason why it is not known is that hitherto it has been unknown that every expression in the Word signifies such things as belong to the internal church and to heaven, thus to the internal man (for the internal of the church, and heaven, are in the internal man). [Arcana Coelestia, 9263]

And goes on to misrepresent salvation by faith as to sanction a faith as salvific that does not produce righteousness, which is not what Reformers taught, but t makes Borg look righteous for contending for righteousness, but which does not Scripturally conflate with how children of wrath are made accepted in the Beloved, on Christ's expense and credit, and received by repentant faith.

People are tired of being told that God is angry and God condemns.

That is the liberal message and it is not new:

"That this is a rebellious people, lying children, children that will not hear the law of the Lord: Which say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits: " (Isaiah 30:9-10)

And the borgs will happily accommodate and feed them what they want.

However, "And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. " (Revelation 20:10) But God cannot be angry with them either according to Borg.

I can’t begin to tell you daniel1212 just how much I appreciate your efforts. Words would not be enough to convey the blessings I receive from your diligent work here. Thank you!

The real question to be asked is, Can God be angry?

John 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.

Romans 1:18-19 18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.

Romans 2:5 But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed.

Romans 12:19 Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”

Ephesians 5:6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.

Colossians 3:5-6 5 Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. 6 On account of these the wrath of God is coming.

Revelation 14:9-11 9 And another angel, a third, followed them, saying with a loud voice, “If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, 10 he also will drink the wine of God's wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. 11 And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name.”

Thank be to God, but there is so much more that could be done.

At least you reprove the the Swedenborgian Church of North America: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominational_positions_on_homosexuality#Swedenborgianism

My experience with that church is that Conjugial Love and significant other parts of the Writings are generally disregarded by most of the Berkeley centered group. It seems up to the individual, though, depending on their worldview.

We have a congregation a few hours from here which we went to a few times... I wasn't comfortable there and gas prices went up, so home worship via video works a lot better for us.