tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post1076642008226934373..comments2023-12-22T08:29:29.230-08:00Comments on WHAT IS TRUTH: Summit on Inerrancy: Not a Consistent, Therefore, Christian WorldviewKent Brandenburghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-39012181711408407012015-03-12T14:50:32.334-07:002015-03-12T14:50:32.334-07:00John Mark IB,
Dear Pastor Brandenburg,
also one ...John Mark IB,<br /><br />Dear Pastor Brandenburg,<br /><br />also one more thing thanks so much for your stand and always wanting to be GOD first I'm so sick and tired of these people who come onto your site and even attempt to start some kind of foolish theological argument with you and though I do love the fact that you always choose to stand GOD first!! thanks for that and wanting to be Biblical, etc., love the way you pick them apart theological piece by piece etc., haha :) have a blessed weekend!! sorry to detract form the main points and thanks for allowing me my 2 cents on your great site!! GOD bless!! John Mark IBAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-53836524649222472922015-03-12T14:46:41.690-07:002015-03-12T14:46:41.690-07:00John Mark IB
Dear Pastor Brandenburg,
Hope you...<br />John Mark IB<br />Dear Pastor Brandenburg,<br /><br />Hope you're well, here's something I thought you might not have seen but it's actually pretty scary if true,<br /><br />http://www.watch.pair.com/macarthur-1-mark-of-beast.html<br /><br />basically he's saying that those who receive the mark can still be saved??<br /> and as one who long ago used to sort of think and follow John McArthur it's just really sad, I now know better and am grateful to you and Dr. Strouse, and Dr. Ross for your stand and teachings which really help what do you think about this from MaCarthur? even I know better and can only read the English versions not the original languages like yourself and Dr's Ross and Strouse can, but how can he be in such tragic error of the clear reading?? thanks for your allowing my posts and may you and yours have a blessed day and weekend with love joy and peace always in Jesus name amen! :) John Mark IBAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-43365444809387240332015-03-11T13:18:59.679-07:002015-03-11T13:18:59.679-07:00Farmer Brown,
I won't go any further than thi...Farmer Brown,<br /><br />I won't go any further than this, but do I know you? I know you're farmer brown, but have I met you in real life.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-3969779217339302172015-03-11T12:24:57.530-07:002015-03-11T12:24:57.530-07:00One thing you have to appreciate about Gary is his...One thing you have to appreciate about Gary is his ideological and rational consistency. His is the rational critical text position.<br /><br />I went back and read some of what he said in the post Thomas linked. Gary said that he thinks Paul is either a liar or a madman. That is the only consistent position, if you do not believe it literally.<br /><br />Many will try to spiritualize or allegorize Daniel, Moses Isaiah, and others. They will say Moses did not write the books of Moses, there were three Isaiahs, Daniel was written later, etc. They will then say there is a deeper spiritual meaning or the accounts are allegories, but the author of these accounts claim they are eyewitness accounts and real. <br /><br />The problem with claiming the accounts contained in the Bible are not real but that they still have value is you are conceding the author to be a liar perpetrating a multi-millennia fraud or a complete madman. How could spiritual truth come from such a source? <br /><br />The CT position has to arrive at this point. It the words cannot be trusted implicitly and completely, then they cannot be trusted at all. All of the outright religious reprobates started where Maranatha and Bob Jones are now. They will be there, probably sooner rather than later.<br /><br />Gary just got there before Mark Minnick and Larry Oats. At least Gary is consistent.Farmer Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09637851494862726991noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-36865119427788396222015-03-11T01:01:02.289-07:002015-03-11T01:01:02.289-07:00Gary,
You've taken the same tack with your la...Gary,<br /><br />You've taken the same tack with your last two comments (unpublished) that you did before, and you didn't deal with the evidence you were given, so I will keep deleting your comments until you deal with the ones from the past. You will likely say elsewhere that no one has answered you, but I can for sure say that you have been answered, but you like your own way better than the truth.<br /><br />If we cannot judge this to be true, we cannot judge anything to be true, because we cannot judge, but if we can judge and we do judge, we will judge this to be true. You are not judging but assuming it not to be true, what Paul calls suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. What is ironic is that you can only assume anything, because this is true. But you assume it not to be true because you can assume something because it is true.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-48457427405891995922015-03-11T00:10:15.093-07:002015-03-11T00:10:15.093-07:00Thomas,
I deleted about 10 of his comments last t...Thomas,<br /><br />I deleted about 10 of his comments last time and gave him a window to the future if he commented on the post itself, which he did, but it is a very narrow window.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-59870519962026529132015-03-10T23:34:15.563-07:002015-03-10T23:34:15.563-07:00Unless he goes back and deals with the evidence th...Unless he goes back and deals with the evidence that was given him on the other post, investigates the books and links, and admits that he was wrong when he didn't even get the way he was supposed to argue for anti-Christianity correctly, I for one am not going to take the time again to respond to yet another one of his blog posts cut-and-pasted into this blog.KJB1611https://www.blogger.com/profile/09696273086955004524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-69001148998065746292015-03-10T23:25:14.284-07:002015-03-10T23:25:14.284-07:00Dear brethren,
In case you didn't realize it,...Dear brethren,<br /><br />In case you didn't realize it, this is the Gary from the comments here:<br /><br />http://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-bible-teaches-permanent.html<br /><br />He ignored the questions and evidence given him there and here is (again, as he has done on this blog over and over) just cut and pasted in our comment section a post he wrote on his blog some time ago. Just to let you know--it is probably a waste of time answering him unless you think his answers on the other post showed that he really wanted truth.KJB1611https://www.blogger.com/profile/09696273086955004524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-24374283740665817182015-03-10T21:18:24.001-07:002015-03-10T21:18:24.001-07:00Gary, it is incorrect that almost all christian do...Gary, it is incorrect that almost all christian doctrines are based on the NT. Almost all are from the OT. Here is a (very) abbreviated list:<br />1. Resurrection from the dead: Exodus 3:6<br />2. Atonement by blood: Exodus 12:13<br />3. Salvation by faith alone: Genesis 15:6<br />4. Headship of man: Genesis 2:23<br />5. One man one woman marriage: Genesis 2:24<br />6. The death of Messiah: Genesis 3:15, Psalm 22, Isaiah 53<br />7. Only one path to God: Genesis 4:10-11<br />8. Rapture before judgment:Genesis: 6:17-18<br />9. Messiah fulfilling Passover: Exodus 12:5-6, 10, 46<br />10. Salvation for any who believe: Exodus 12:49<br />11. Eternal security: Deuteronomy 6:23, 17:13<br />12. No sacrifice for those who willfully reject: Exodus 32:33<br />13. Preservation of the words of God: Deuteronomy 8:3, 30:11-13<br />14. A land prepared for us: Exodus 3:17, 23:29-30<br /><br />These are some of the broad strokes. I don't know if you have more faith in the OT than the NT, but everything in the NT has a predecessor in the OT. Even without getting out of Moses, you could have almost every NT doctrine established.<br /><br />The OT is just the Testimony of Jesus the Messiah prior to his advent. The is the reason Jesus said, "For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me." (John 5:46)<br /><br />In addition, the resurrection of Jesus has no less than 6 eyewitness accounts that survive to this day. It is the most well recorded even in antiquity. God saw to it that would happen so you would have all the evidence you need that Jesus is Messiah.<br /><br />What other accounts from antiquity have six written eyewitness accounts that survive to this day? The death of Caesar? The battle of Thermopylae? The siege of Masada? Destruction of the temple? None have even a fraction of the evidence of the resurrection.<br /><br />Because of what you wrote I assume you believe in God but reject Jesus as God. He gave you all the evidence you need to know he is God.<br />Farmer Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09637851494862726991noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-86726368432707009532015-03-10T17:43:18.706-07:002015-03-10T17:43:18.706-07:00Gary,
You charge "zero evidence" as a b...Gary,<br /><br />You charge "zero evidence" as a basis for Christianity, but how does anyone decide what is evidence, that is, what is the authority for evidence? What is the evidence for evidence? How can we know anything that we know unless there are laws that are universal, unchanging, and invariant, that are a basis by which anything and everything can be judged? They are true. That would mean that truth is objective. If there is a standard for judgment, where did it come from? <br /><br />Gary, if you are going to say that a standard exists by which we can judge whether something is true, how could that be if it did not apply repeatedly in a contingent realm of experience, that is, not in a world that is random, not subject to personal order, where nothing can be judged truly? Why are these laws of evidence true by which you indict Christianity? Why do you believe them? You assume the validity of evidence. That is, you believe evidence with no evidence.<br /><br />So do I. We can't have a discussion without assumptions. You assume Christianity is not true. I assume that it is, because it is the only explanation that fulfills the laws of logic. It is the only explanation that fulfills rational thought. The alternative is that we are an accident, which I reject. You can stick with that, if you want, and when I say, if you want, that is with the assumption that you can want anything, that is, that you are not an accident. You, however, cannot make that assumption, because as an accident, you can't assume anything. To assume, there must be self-evident laws that are universal, unchanging, and unvariant. Or we can't argue and there would be no point. Since you want to argue, you agree with that point. And that point fits only with a biblical worldview. If you don't believe my worldview, stop borrowing it to argue with me.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-20106096066864126062015-03-10T10:36:44.556-07:002015-03-10T10:36:44.556-07:00Almost all Christian doctrines are based on the Ne...Almost all Christian doctrines are based on the New Testament of the Bible. But, how do Christians know that these 27 books are the inerrant, inspired words of God, as Christians tell us?<br /><br />Answer: A bunch of fallible, scientifically illiterate Churchmen in the second, third, and fourth centuries said so! That's it!<br /><br />When and where did God say that a bunch of old Churchmen have the authority to determine what is and what is not his Word? When and where did God say that Saul/Paul of Tarsus was speaking on his behalf? Or the writers of the Gospels? Or James? Or Peter? Or any other writer of the New Testament? Even if the apostles themselves had voted unanimously for the 27 books of the current New Testament to be designated as the "Word of God", that still would not prove that God had authorized them to do so. We have no evidence that the Eleven achieved a state of perfection and omniscience on Pentecost. They, like every other human being, were fallible. So where is the evidence that God left a list of what should and what should not be considered his Word in a new testament?<br /><br />Answer: No where!<br /><br />We have no evidence from the Bible or anywhere else that God gave Christians a list of what is and what is not his Word! Christians have created an "inerrant, inspired, you-are-damned-to-Hell-if-you-don't-believe-it" Holy Book based solely on the opinions of men living almost 2,000 years ago.<br /><br />Bombshell: Christians have zero evidence that proves the New Testament of the Bible to be the Word of God; the inerrant message of the Creator of the Universe to mankind. Zero!<br />Garyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02519721717265344702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-20772698246811032532015-03-10T01:14:22.064-07:002015-03-10T01:14:22.064-07:00George,
It's impossible to glean from the Bib...George,<br /><br />It's impossible to glean from the Bible the position you espoused in your comment. It isn't a historic position either. All Scripture came to us before the English language existed. God preserved what He inspired. At the same time, as I above explained, I understand how you could get there through a pendulum swing from the Warfieldian type view. Both of you don't believe we still have the Bible in the languages in which it was written, so you have invented positions you can both live with. They are both faithless.<br /><br />This will be the extent of our give and take on this in the comment section.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-25258545155834201262015-03-09T10:28:53.360-07:002015-03-09T10:28:53.360-07:00I must continue to "harp" on your simpli...I must continue to "harp" on your simplistic view of KJVO. Your comments on this alone take the view that all KJVOs believe that "it ALONE came down directly from heaven". In a sense it is true of all text types that are recognized by the body of Christ as "the scriptures". Jesus Christ opened a bible and read "from the scriptures". Therefore, the Hebrew or Aramaic text he was reading IS SCRIPTURE. It is the exact argument for the Holy King James Bible. It has been recognized by the body of Christ for 400 years as inspired and therefore "the scriptures".<br /><br />The historical evidence is there, but it is argued from the basis of some AUTOGRAPHS that have NO IMPORTANCE to God nor the scriptures, since the bible never speaks about the scriptures in those terms. That is added by every Greek scholar that I have ever read, but no one deals with the body of Christ, the image of God (1 John 4:2) as those who by the Spirit "recognize" and accept as absolute truth.<br /><br />Therefore, whether your arguments or Warfields, you both argue from the past to try to prove the present, while the presence has established the only bible anyone hold to be absolute truth in English, ie, the King James Bible.<br /><br />The way I prove that is to teach it with great confidence in its words and truths and by faith when one speaks against the words of God to correct them. I have never failed to prove anyone wrong concerning "the scriptures" when they have said "errors" exist within. As you know, as a true bible believer, I hold to the fact that the Holy King James Bible is without proven error, it is perfect in words, infallible, and it is the very words of God. It as like it came from heaven as all inspired scripture comes (2 Peter 1:19-21), for men spake by the Holy Ghost and now we have a MORE sure word of prophecy, for it is written and kept by the sons of God. All that is written and known as "the scriptures' are kept throughout the ages by the Lord God and it is given to the church, the body of Christ (not scholars!) to determine what is and what is not "the scriptures" by the "common faith" of those who will live, preach, teach and admonish the body to continue in them, for the true scriptures read you while you read them.<br />The Preacherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00555338497068482867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-75702460053843653502015-03-08T14:34:29.920-07:002015-03-08T14:34:29.920-07:00Anonymous,
You are essentially good with burning ...Anonymous,<br /><br />You are essentially good with burning down the whole building and scorching everything around it to keep your music. It doesn't matter that it can't be true. You are willing to embrace the big lie if I can't paint every detail for you. You have a lot to deal with first.<br /><br />You have moved things that you want to have into the realm of opinion. Read it yourself. The opinion is that beauty is subjective. It isn't, but it must be for you to have what you want.<br /><br />I'm not asking anyone to accept my opinion, but to believe the truth. You can judge things. If you can't, then we're either determined, mechanistic, scientific materialism or we are whatever we want, whatever we feel, everyone's truth is true. You're one of those that want it both ways, even though both are false. And then you claim repeatedly that I'm ignorant. I have to say that it is funny.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-60064838908592118392015-03-08T12:53:29.565-07:002015-03-08T12:53:29.565-07:00Let's say you are correct. You are not even cl...Let's say you are correct. You are not even close but let's say for argument's sake that you are. I have a very simple question for you. How does Kent Brandenburg know what objective beauty looks like in music? And when Kent Brandenburg's opinion differs from others, maybe even someone who actually knows something about music, why should we accept your opinion?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com