10 Commandments Twice Removed - Amazon $0.01, what does it say in a nutshell? Options

[Rosyroi]

Rosyroi,

I'm not really sure the womens could tell you themselves which it is...

but, from the way the responses were given, it appears that it was from being hypnotized

'cuz when I tried asking for details, all I could get was "OH, it was so WONDERFUL!!"
with lots of emotion exhibited...

Yes too many people get hypnotized with the idea of a 'Adventist Celebrity' comming to town and being in close proximity that to gain any spiritual blessing from what the 'AC' has to say has been lost and forgotten.

I have met too many wonderful Adventist folk who came down with this malady...not easily overcome by conventional medical help...

Only exercising in diligent prayer is a person able to overcome the debilitating malady...

[västergötland]

Yes too many people get hypnotized with the idea of a 'Adventist Celebrity' comming to town and being in close proximity that to gain any spiritual blessing from what the 'AC' has to say has been lost and forgotten.

I have met too many wonderful Adventist folk who came down with this malady...not easily overcome by conventional medical help...

Only exercising in diligent prayer is a person able to overcome the debilitating malady...

Perhaps a good whack on the head could help also? Or pointing out, with examples, that the heores are humans too and have their own share of weakness.

[västergötland]

"Regardless of how long adventists may have endorsed that view, the fact remains that it is exegetically inconsistent and any hermaneutic that reads into the passage the idea that the cheirographon spoken of is the ceremonial law is irreparably flawed even if it's in the book on the fundamental beliefs…" I've noticed there's a lot of smoke on the internet and in other places in regard to the meaning of Colossians 2:14-17. I'm not a Greek scholar, but I respectfully disagree with the assertion that the "handwriting of ordinances" that was "blotted out" and "nailed to his cross" is not in this context a special reference to the ceremonial law. I see a parallel with "the law of commandments contained in ordinances" that was "abolished in his flesh" in Ephesians 2:15.

It seems that "cheirographon" only occurs once in the bible, in this very verse. It also seems that its meaning is:
1) a handwriting, what one has written by his own hand

2) a note of hand or writing in which one acknowledges that money has either been deposited with him or lent to him by another, to be returned at the appointed time

In both cases it would seem to me that the ceremonial law is not primarily intended. If we go with the first meaning, a handwriting by ones own hand, who's hand would it likely be refering to? Moses hand? Since he wrote the entire book, it would be rather unspecific if it refers to Moses. Gods hand? In such case it could only refer to the stone tablets or the text Daniel interpreted in Babylon, again not options that allow for the ceremonial law.


The second greek word, "dogma", which appears both in Colossians and in Ephesians,


1) doctrine, decree, ordinance

a) of public decrees

of the Roman Senate

c) of rulers

2) the rules and requirements of the law of Moses; carrying a suggestion of severity and of threatened judgment

3) of certain decrees of the apostles relative to right living

This word is found five times in the bible. Except for the two times already mentioned, two times it refers to decrees of Caesar, Luke 2:1 and Acts 17.7 and the fifth time in Acts 16:4 where it talks about the "dogma" of the apostles and elders of Jerusalem. The translation suggestion in point 2 supports that it could refer to the ceremonial law, but its not clear that it makes a distinction between ceremonial and other law. Its not obvious why "do not cook a calf in its mothers milk" would be a "rule and requirement of the law of Moses" while "honour your father and your mother so that you will live long and prosperous" would not...


Or to take the example of Ephesians 2. How would the removal of ceremonial laws such as the command to wash oneself and ones clothes after working with burrial of the dead "unite Israel with the gentile"?

"… even if it is endorsed by Mark Finley." The supporting quote I gave was from the prophet, Ellen White, not Mark Finley. It is obvious you meant to say also that a position is wrong, "even if it is endorsed by Ellen White."

If a position is wrong, it is still wrong whomever you can find to support it, right? Or do you mean to say that something that is wrong becomes right if it finds support with Ellen? Or do you mean to say that nothing that Ellen supports could possibly be wrong?

"Given the zeal with which Adventists will point out doctrinal error in other denominations…" For the past several decades in the Adventist churches I have attended, in the overall nothing could be further from the truth. "Doctrinal error in other denominations" has been given little attention, let alone done with "zeal."

This is a good thing, isnt it?

"… we cannot give our own a free pass when the bad doctrine is coming from our own… because when we do we are become respecters of persons... which is something God loathes." AMEN! … so long as we remember that even with the "respecter of persons" issue, it is the sin and not the sinner that God loathes. It would also be "respecting persons", would it not, to engage in excessive criticism of our own long held doctrines, while condemning our evangelists for graciously presenting truths which cut across the long cherished erroneous beliefs of others?

Could it be that the safe route through this quagmire is to pursue truth whereever it may be found and reject error whereever it may be found? Then we would be free from having to research the affiliations of who said what.

[Brick Step]

Thank you for the reply, västergötland. I guess for now it’s a case of agreeing to disagree on Colossians 2:14. I note, by the way, that there are commentaries other than the SDA one which argue that in the death of Jesus on the cross, it was the "law of Moses" or the ceremonial law that was “blotted out” and “nailed to the cross.”

If a position is wrong, it is still wrong whomever you can find to support it, right? Or do you mean to say that something that is wrong becomes right if it finds support with Ellen? Or do you mean to say that nothing that Ellen supports could possibly be wrong?

Yes, I believe that in her major writings Ellen White speaks with the authority of a prophet of God.

This is a good thing, isnt it?

SDA churches should not preach against the doctrinal errors of other churches? Yes and No. If this is all SDA churches did, I would stay away. But continuing support for the BSDA “3ABN Saga” forums is proof of agreement in principle that sometimes the preaching of present truth must involve identifying sin, calling sinners to repentance, and helping the abused or deceived. Failure to include this exercise in the preaching of the everlasting gospel does nothing but ensure a Laodicean church remains Laodicean, and sleeping virgins remain asleep. Jesus both “loved righteousness, and hated iniquity” (Heb 1:9) and His own ministry reflected this fact. It is of the nature of God-originated love to act this way, is it not? The three angels’ messages speaking to the final crisis of earth’s history, are still there, firmly embedded in the apex of the pyramid structure of the book of Revelation. These messages are for now and cannot be entirely spiritualized away.

I felt that comments something like the above would have been much more true to fact, than the charge that SDA churches preach against other churches with zeal.

Could it be that the safe route through this quagmire is to pursue truth whereever it may be found and reject error whereever it may be found? Then we would be free from having to research the affiliations of who said what.

Yes! I fully agree. Truth is still truth even if found in unlikely places. It is nothing but ugly bigotry that discounts a fact as truth, because of our beliefs about the “affiliations of who said what.” I am remembering one particular pastor to whom I took a bundle of papers coming from various “unauthorized” sources, and asked questions based upon them. He nearly took a fit. It seemed he could not see the questions because of the source of some of the documents I presented. I was immediately associated with those sources, even though I had no desire at all to follow where at least some of them had gone (I don’t remember all the papers. It happened a long time ago).

But there are biblical guidelines for engaging in the quest for truth. It is surely still greatest wisdom to follow them. It is still foolishness to enquire of the gods of Ekron or the witch of Endor. There is still a woe pronounced against us if we call evil good, and good evil. And if we do not take up the quest for truth with a humble and contrite spirit, it is still likely our eyes will be blind and fail to recognize truth when it surfaces.

That's how I see things anyway.

This post has been edited by Brick Step: Nov 4 2007, 05:58 AM

[Brick Step]

On the 3ABN Live program last Friday, Shelley Quinn hosted a discussion on the subject of intercessory prayer. The panel consisted of Mollie Steenson, Linda Johnson and Lesa Budd. So far as I could judge, the concepts of prayer discussed were totally biblical, those practised by true Christians everywhere. They also gave brief warnings against false types of meditation and New Age procedures.

[västergötland]

Thank you for the reply, västergötland. I guess for now it's a case of agreeing to disagree on Colossians 2:14. I note, by the way, that there are commentaries other than the SDA one which argue that in the death of Jesus on the cross, it was the "law of Moses" or the ceremonial law that was "blotted out" and "nailed to the cross."

I think that the individual who intends to boldly seek the truth will look at all of the commentaries, both those whom one agrees with and those whom one does not agree with and weigh each one in the same balance.

Yes, I believe that in her major writings Ellen White speaks with the authority of a prophet of God.

So you believe she is infallible in these writings, or?

SDA churches should not preach against the doctrinal errors of other churches? Yes and No. If this is all SDA churches did, I would stay away. But continuing support for the BSDA "3ABN Saga" forums is proof of agreement in principle that sometimes the preaching of present truth must involve identifying sin, calling sinners to repentance, and helping the abused or deceived. Failure to include this exercise in the preaching of the everlasting gospel does nothing but ensure a Laodicean church remains Laodicean, and sleeping virgins remain asleep. Jesus both "loved righteousness, and hated iniquity" (Heb 1:9) and His own ministry reflected this fact. It is of the nature of God-originated love to act this way, is it not? The three angels' messages speaking to the final crisis of earth's history, are still there, firmly embedded in the apex of the pyramid structure of the book of Revelation. These messages are for now and cannot be entirely spiritualized away.

I felt that comments something like the above would have been much more true to fact, than the charge that SDA churches preach against other churches with zeal.

Is there a difference between preaching against doctrinal error and preaching against doctrinal error of other churches? If no, then why ever do the later? If yes, what then is this difference?

It is true that Jesus identified sin, called sinners to repentance and helped the abused and decieved, but at the same time He was willing to suffer the cross for both the victims and the predators. I once heard a sermon on the great controversy theme echo Paul in Ephesians 6, if the one standing against us has flesh and blood, he/she is not the enemy but a victim of the enemy. Someone to fight for rather than against.

Yes! I fully agree. Truth is still truth even if found in unlikely places. It is nothing but ugly bigotry that discounts a fact as truth, because of our beliefs about the "affiliations of who said what." I am remembering one particular pastor to whom I took a bundle of papers coming from various "unauthorized" sources, and asked questions based upon them. He nearly took a fit. It seemed he could not see the questions because of the source of some of the documents I presented. I was immediately associated with those sources, even though I had no desire at all to follow where at least some of them had gone (I don't remember all the papers. It happened a long time ago).

And if you give the same questions but without revealing any sources beyond yourself? Is the responce still the same?

But there are biblical guidelines for engaging in the quest for truth. It is surely still greatest wisdom to follow them. It is still foolishness to enquire of the gods of Ekron or the witch of Endor. There is still a woe pronounced against us if we call evil good, and good evil. And if we do not take up the quest for truth with a humble and contrite spirit, it is still likely our eyes will be blind and fail to recognize truth when it surfaces.

That's how I see things anyway.

I would agree here. One has no reason to expect to learn any truth if going to inquire of the gods of Ekron or the witch of Endor. However, one must learn to identify and see the difference between the gods of Ekron and those workers whom the Lord spoke of as recorded in Mark 9:38-41 and Luke 9:49-50. It appears that we are often no more dicerning here than where Jesus diciples back then.

[Brick Step]

I think that the individual who intends to boldly seek the truth will look at all of the commentaries, both those whom one agrees with and those whom one does not agree with and weigh each one in the same balance.

I believe in this course to a degree. But I note that a dozen highly intelligent and educated minds can follow it and come out with different conclusions, and concensus statements, and majority positions have often proved to be wrong. Some may be called to a close study of all the commentaries, whether pro or con a particular point of view. I deeply appreciate the input from many Bible scholars. But in the quest for truth I honestly would not feel it wise to encourage this way to the average person out there. The Bible itself tells how it should be studied, and of the two contending supernatural forces that will be active during this quest.

So you believe she is infallible in these writings, or?

"One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the minsitry of Ellen G. White. As the Lord's messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction. They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teachings and experience must be tested." SDA Fundamental Belief 17 (or is it 18 now?).

I am comfortable with this statement, and with the points taken in the chapter "The Gift of Prophecy" in Seventh-day Adventists Believe: A Biblical Exposition of 27 Fundamental Doctrines.

Is there a difference between preaching against doctrinal error and preaching against doctrinal error of other churches? If no, then why ever do the later? If yes, what then is this difference?

Thought-provoking questions. The deepest love and greatest tact and wisdom are needed when addressing doctrinal errors or the sins of others, whether inside or outside one's own church. I don't think most of us are ready for this role. But in certain circumstances the Bible indicates it is appropriate to say, "Thou art the man."

It is true that Jesus identified sin, called sinners to repentance and helped the abused and decieved, but at the same time He was willing to suffer the cross for both the victims and the predators.

Sir, a profoundly true and challenging thought! It is one I am, by God's grace, trying desperately to remember as I read and have tried to participate on the "3ABN Saga" forums on BSDA.

I once heard a sermon on the great controversy theme echo Paul in Ephesians 6, if the one standing against us has flesh and blood, he/she is not the enemy but a victim of the enemy. Someone to fight for rather than against.

Great point. Conducting that fight the right way can only come as a gift of God's grace. Christ still openly rebuked the hypocrisy of the scribes and pharisees and declared that the temple was "left desolate." Even Paul identified certain persons as enemies of the church, and warned the church against them. But if a church is peopled with the half-converted and uninformed, it can be expected that in a crisis, disciplinary action will be meted out against the Paul's and the Peter's rather than the real source of trouble.

And if you give the same questions but without revealing any sources beyond yourself? Is the responce still the same?

Asking questions without revealing sources - that is certainly the way to go, lots of times. But are you implying there are no circumstances in which one should reveal sources?

I would agree here. One has no reason to expect to learn any truth if going to inquire of the gods of Ekron or the witch of Endor. However, one must learn to identify and see the difference between the gods of Ekron and those workers whom the Lord spoke of as recorded in Mark 9:38-41 and Luke 9:49-50. It appears that we are often no more dicerning here than where Jesus diciples back then.

Believe me, I agree with you here. God grant us all the spiritual discernment we need to recognize His ministers and witnesses in whatever garb and under whatever umbrella they might come.

[västergötland]

I believe in this course to a degree. But I note that a dozen highly intelligent and educated minds can follow it and come out with different conclusions, and concensus statements, and majority positions have often proved to be wrong. Some may be called to a close study of all the commentaries, whether pro or con a particular point of view. I deeply appreciate the input from many Bible scholars. But in the quest for truth I honestly would not feel it wise to encourage this way to the average person out there. The Bible itself tells how it should be studied, and of the two contending supernatural forces that will be active during this quest.

One of them promised, seek and you will find, and, noone who comes to me will be shown away.

Thought-provoking questions. The deepest love and greatest tact and wisdom are needed when addressing doctrinal errors or the sins of others, whether inside or outside one's own church. I don't think most of us are ready for this role. But in certain circumstances the Bible indicates it is appropriate to say, "Thou art the man."

In other places we are told, remove the beam from your own eye so that you can see clearly when you help your brother clean his eye(Matt 7). We also learn that the standards we use to judge others will in the final judgement be used against ourselves, so we better beware from judging leisureily(Matt 7). We are told also that the judgement is Gods and the revenge is His (Rom 12). Then one passage suggests that the one who judges others in reallity and often unknown to himself is sitting in judgement of the law itself (Jam 4).

Great point. Conducting that fight the right way can only come as a gift of God's grace. Christ still openly rebuked the hypocrisy of the scribes and pharisees and declared that the temple was "left desolate." Even Paul identified certain persons as enemies of the church, and warned the church against them. But if a church is peopled with the half-converted and uninformed, it can be expected that in a crisis, disciplinary action will be meted out against the Paul's and the Peter's rather than the real source of trouble.

Or people whom disciplinary action is meted out against will through the martyr or persecution complex assume that they are the heirs of Paul and Peter precisely because they are disciplined.
Another thing I heard in a sermon, this time about the woes Jesus proclaimed, was as follows: The pharisees declared that if they had lived in the time of the prophets, they would have behaved differently than their fathers did and they would have listened to the prophets rather than kill them. However, at the same time, they where busy with plotting the death of Jesus. The point made in the sermon was, whenever we feel inclined to say such a thing as "if I had been there, my actions would have been much more righteous than were those of them who acctually where there" it is a good time to take timeout and conduct self evaluation.

Asking questions without revealing sources - that is certainly the way to go, lots of times. But are you implying there are no circumstances in which one should reveal sources?

My question was very much dealing with this specific incident you told about. If you took the same questions as before and went to a new pastor who did not know of your previous experience and asked those questions but without telling anything about how you got to those questions, would you be recieved in a different way than you was the last time?

[Johann]

This discussion is getting quiite interesting, and I believe that BSDA is the right forum for many such discussions.

Many hours, days, and weeks have been used divulging into this matter of the law. Often these can be helpful, but when they reach extremes they may force the participants into loggerheads as they reach beyond what they had anticipated in order to prove a point. This has, at times, lead to disasters in the history of our Church, and yet some benefits have also appeared. So where is the danger?

I can see what W meant, and yet the way he words it could tend to tarnish the understanding of the role Ellen White plays in our Church. I don't think either party wants to hang on the fruitless borders in such a dispute.

When our church with its doctrines was not even formed yet, the young girl Ellen received a special commission, even though she did not comprehend what was going on. She did not understand all that was going on at the doctrinal discussions, especially in connection with the Sabbath. Then the Lord gave her the assurance that the Brethren were moving in the right direction, based on Scripture.

Years later she was writing perhaps her most important book, The Desire of Ages. Chapters were written in California, and before these were printed she sent a copy to her husband, James, who was then at Battle Creek. With these she wrote him a note asking him and especially one of his co-workers to check the contents. She wanted to be certain she had not written anything that was contrary to our doctrines in that important book.

Ellen has never been the source of SDA doctrines, although God has used her mightily to give us clear understanding of our doctrines. Scripture, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, is the source of every doctrine, and this has always been the official stand of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

I think both W and BS can find support for their views among past or present Bible teachers in our Church. It may be helpful in that connection to study what happened around 1888. Perhaps what Waggoner proclaimed then about the law might give some light, also what Ellen said about it at that time.

Just a few nuggets to consider.

[västergötland]

Hi Johann, have you read this article series "Från Sinai till Golgata"?
http://www.adventist.se/econtent/files/2522/m0707-08.pdf
http://www.adventist.se/econtent/files/2585/m0709.pdf
http://www.adventist.se/econtent/files/2586/m0710.pdf

[watchbird]

Hi Johann, have you read this article series "Från Sinai till Golgata"?
http://www.adventist.se/econtent/files/2522/m0707-08.pdf
http://www.adventist.se/econtent/files/2585/m0709.pdf
http://www.adventist.se/econtent/files/2586/m0710.pdf

This series by Alden Thompson, which first appeared in the Adventist Review in 1981, can be read in English at http://sdanet.org/atissue/white/alden/index.htm

[awesumtenor]

Amen! It is also true that positions endorsed by the Holy Spirit in the long ago remain truth in the here and now.

Your position on Colossians chapter 2 is not one of those, however...

I’ve noticed there’s a lot of smoke on the internet and in other places in regard to the meaning of Colossians 2:14-17. I’m not a Greek scholar, but I respectfully disagree with the assertion that the “handwriting of ordinances” that was “blotted out” and “nailed to his cross” is not in this context a special reference to the ceremonial law. I see a parallel with “the law of commandments contained in ordinances” that was “abolished in his flesh” in Ephesians 2:15.

The distinction in question is one that requires greek scholarship... if you are not, by your admission, a greek scholar, you are not in a position to knowledgably disagree with the assertion... and regardless of how much you want it to be so because that is what you have been told all your life, it does not say what you claim... and never has. A "cheirographon" is a letter of indebtedness; an IOU, nothing more. What was done with that IOU at Calvary is what is done in some restaurants today when you go up and pay your bill, the bill written out by the waiter is put on a spike next to the cash register signifying that the bill has been paid.

The supporting quote I gave was from the prophet, Ellen White, not Mark Finley. It is obvious you meant to say also that a position is wrong, “even if it is endorsed by Ellen White.”

That was a mistake on my part... but what I said still applies... even if EGW said it... there is no need to point out her being "the prophet" because that does not make her infallible...

For the past several decades in the Adventist churches I have attended, in the overall nothing could be further from the truth. "Doctrinal error in other denominations" has been given little attention, let alone done with "zeal."

Everyone's experience is not yours... and vice-versa... in many locales said zeal remains the rule rather than the exception.

AMEN! … so long as we remember that even with the “respecter of persons” issue, it is the sin and not the sinner that God loathes. It would also be “respecting persons”, would it not, to engage in excessive criticism of our own long held doctrines, while condemning our evangelists for graciously presenting truths which cut across the long cherished erroneous beliefs of others?

Seeing that no evangelist has "graciously presented" any truth in this thread that cuts "across the long cherished erroneous beliefs of others", what, exactly is your point? Expliquez, s'il-vous plait...

In His service,
Mr. J

[awesumtenor]

Thank you for the reply, västergötland. I guess for now it’s a case of agreeing to disagree on Colossians 2:14. I note, by the way, that there are commentaries other than the SDA one which argue that in the death of Jesus on the cross, it was the "law of Moses" or the ceremonial law that was “blotted out” and “nailed to the cross.”

If greater number of people endorsing an error made it truth, we'd be doing all of the things we decry...

If a position is wrong, it is still wrong whomever you can find to support it, right? Or do you mean to say that something that is wrong becomes right if it finds support with Ellen? Or do you mean to say that nothing that Ellen supports could possibly be wrong?

Yes, I believe that in her major writings Ellen White speaks with the authority of a prophet of God.

What you've said does not answer the question(s)... Do you believe that something wrong becomes right if EGW endorses it? Do you believe that nothing EGW endorses could possibly be wrong?

Either you do or you dont. One can... indeed, to a great extent, must... assume that your answer to both questions is yes, based on the things you've stated in this thread and others... but rather than assume, you've been asked... by me before and by Thomas here... so there can be understanding of from whence your perspective is come... so why the continued disingenuity?

Either you believe it... or you dont. Either way, you are entitled to your belief and none either desire or requires you to change it... but if you are going to participate in dialog, it is inevitable that what you believe will receive some scrutiny... and the only way to avoid that is to avoid dialog... but giving a misleading answer to a direct question is using a tool in the devil's toolbox... are you sure that is where you want to go and whose methods you want to use? You spoke of enquiring to the witch of endor and the gods of ekron... where does putting forth evasion to avoid speaking the truth fall?

In His service,
Mr. J

[Brick Step]

This discussion is getting quiite interesting, and I believe that BSDA is the right forum for many such discussions.

Many hours, days, and weeks have been used divulging into this matter of the law. Often these can be helpful, but when they reach extremes they may force the participants into loggerheads as they reach beyond what they had anticipated in order to prove a point. This has, at times, lead to disasters in the history of our Church, and yet some benefits have also appeared. So where is the danger?

I can see what W meant, and yet the way he words it could tend to tarnish the understanding of the role Ellen White plays in our Church. I don't think either party wants to hang on the fruitless borders in such a dispute.

When our church with its doctrines was not even formed yet, the young girl Ellen received a special commission, even though she did not comprehend what was going on. She did not understand all that was going on at the doctrinal discussions, especially in connection with the Sabbath. Then the Lord gave her the assurance that the Brethren were moving in the right direction, based on Scripture.

Years later she was writing perhaps her most important book, The Desire of Ages. Chapters were written in California, and before these were printed she sent a copy to her husband, James, who was then at Battle Creek. With these she wrote him a note asking him and especially one of his co-workers to check the contents. She wanted to be certain she had not written anything that was contrary to our doctrines in that important book.

Ellen has never been the source of SDA doctrines, although God has used her mightily to give us clear understanding of our doctrines. Scripture, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, is the source of every doctrine, and this has always been the official stand of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

I think both W and BS can find support for their views among past or present Bible teachers in our Church. It may be helpful in that connection to study what happened around 1888. Perhaps what Waggoner proclaimed then about the law might give some light, also what Ellen said about it at that time.

Just a few nuggets to consider.

This reads like counsel from a very approachable, wise, and experienced pastor. I'm not sure how you would develop some of these points, Johann, but as it reads here, I think I agree with everything you have said.

[Brick Step]

...
My question was very much dealing with this specific incident you told about. If you took the same questions as before and went to a new pastor who did not know of your previous experience and asked those questions but without telling anything about how you got to those questions, would you be recieved in a different way than you was the last time?

It would help if I could remember the questions I gave. This is a hypothetical. At the time there was a big and prolonged situation involving many others who, as I recollect, had already in various ways tried to make at least some of the points I had turned into questions. New faces did not in significant respects understand what had gone before.

Could you further explain why you are pressing the point about asking questions without revealing the sources out of which those questions arose.

I have no argument with at least most of the rest of what you said in this post, and have made those points myself over the years. The problems in the life of the church come with application of those points, of course.

Amen and amen to the many wonderful Bible promises that if we (even the humbles of our number who can't read Hebrew or Greek - and we of course still need Hebrew and Greek scholars) seek Jesus and the truth with all that we have, we will find Him and we will know the truth.