Anchors, strangers, and voices oh my

It is extremely sad but embarrassingly amusing to hear unbelievers say ‘I know more of the scriptures than believers.’  Yeah, like Pontius Pilate or King Herod could hold a candle against ahem, Peter, James, or John, or even Dr. Alfred Edersheim, that stellar minded and biblically astute giant of the faith.

Image result for anchor

His treatise ‘Old Testament History,’ as well as the monumental ‘Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah,’ were oxes in the land, where all naysayers are but grasshoppers. His work is to this day unchallenged by serious students of scripture.

Then there is always the brilliant man of old, Sir Robert Anderson, whose analytical mind proved helpful during the days of Jack the Ripper’s tenure, as he investigated at Scotland Yard. The Scotsman’s treatise ‘The Silence of God,’ was and still is a monarch of intellectual mastery, thanks to his obvious spiritual gift.

Didja catch the point about his ‘investigations?’ Yes, he used this same skill in digging through scripture, leaving no clue or stone unturned, as he brought forth the deep treasures of scripture, and laid out the pearls where light and truth are friends.

He defended the claims of a silent heaven where God does not speak through signs and wonders to prove He is, and he dissects carefully the dispensational distinctions that make his case iron clad. He argues perfectly the genius of God and the age of grace; and oh by the way, he perfectly explains the wisdom of God regarding Israel’s being set aside; not ‘forgotten, nor gone,’ but a temporary blindness as it were.

The finest examples of men and unbelief wisely did not challenge His premise, yet fools persist today in trying to find loopholes in that which has been forever settled. There are no weaknesses in scripture, as if there are defects in a rainbow, or that a man would complain that the moon is not bright enough.

Among his many contributions, ‘Sketches of Jewish Social life’ has been helpful to not a few in understanding and appreciating the context in which the Lord walked. ‘Forgotten Truths,’ ‘Redemption Truths,’ ‘The Atonement,’ and his outstanding ‘Daniel’s seventieth week,’ are some of the finest teaching aids that God has so freely given to the church in days of attempted corruption of scripture.

Heck, time would fail to document the pillars of the faith such as McIntosh, Grant, Ironside, McGee, Edwards, Ms. Eliot, the great hymn writers such as Newton and Wesley, and oh, the tens of thousands more who have lived and died and who easily defended the faith with an inspiration not their own.  The voice of God is so unlike the voice of strangers.

Ones unbelief in the divine automatically disqualifies a person from any chance of being reasonable or fair in a field which eludes him entirely. The word of God is not Time or a Newsweek magazine where careless opinions are thought to be gospel. There are requirements for understanding that are the inbred genius and safeguard by the One who inspired the Book.

The criminally minded cannot be trusted with the ‘sacred trust,’ as it is a law of nature, as well as the warp and woof of scripture. And who are these criminals? Easy. They who commit crimes. And who has done so? Well, last time I checked, entrance into the human race through the portal of birth kind of adds to the notable roster where no man is exempt from this fame called vice.

While stealing penny candy or corporate embezzling are kinds of crime, the very worst is the attempted theft of the truth of scripture, which robs God of His glory, and desires to create shipwreck of ones faith. Thank God for the anchor of the soul.

Many self-proclaimed experts on the human mind write with a pretense that is staggering to common sense and void of rational thought, when they say believers know nothing of the book that the unbelievers try to teach.  Truly it is embarrassing to hear the attempts of people who believe not one word of scripture, as they try to lecture on spirituality using natural means. Sorry, no can do. Borrowed rust heaps of metal opinions are useless  as a sunken ship and are full of holes and hold no merit. The anchor of scripture does not dull over time.

Note the word ‘borrowed.’ Indeed, there are no new complaints against the veracity of scripture, as they all come from the same recycled bin located in the wee corner of the field called mischief.

The word of God is the only book whose message is hidden to the proud, revealed to faith, confirmed by others, and is ‘studied’ by the unbeliever to gadabout, ‘proving’ its lack of worth. How smart is that to waste time and energy on that which one finds repulsive.

Reminds me of a person who was drunk, and hasn’t touched the bottle in 50 years, who now spends all his days preaching to people that he is still a drunk. If that is not a disconnect of reality, then the unbeliever who is an evangelist has a just cause; unfortunately, one must believe the God of scripture, believe the scriptures of truth, be a follower of Christ, and be equipped with a mouth that brings forth good things, to be a harbinger of the grace of God.

The quantum leap of ignorance by they who pretend to ‘know’ the scriptures, and who boast of intellectual prowess, is dismissed in less than three seconds by people who know what the good book says, for the voice of strangers is a dead giveaway.  The voice of the good shepherd is clear as day whereby all other voices are but noise.

The other day I was in a restaurant and heard a man say ‘hello’ to a friend. Never seeing his face and not turning around, I immediately knew him, his name, where I saw him last, the nature of our conversation, where he lived, and the car he drove, simply by hearing his voice.

That said, the voice of truth is more clear than what is heard through the ears.

There is an agreeableness, there is a purity, there is a voice that resonates and reaches the very core of a mans being; like the cadence of the notes on the scale or the sound of running water in a brook, this voice is eloquent in its demure, and since one must choose between ‘the many voices in the air,’ the voice of truth is the clearest, the easiest to hear, and the only one that completely satisfies every issue of life, for honesty answers every thing.

The voice of strangers is but a plastic anchor tossed to and fro, with no root of permanence, no mooring to something better than itself, and while it may gather seasonal attention from the onlookers, it cannot withstand the storms of life, as there is but One who has no competitors.

So it is no surprise that He who is the way, the truth, and the life, speaks with the voice that is as the sound of many waters…….no wonder so many through the corridor of time bowed in grateful appreciation to the One who Himself, and that word, is that anchor.

Advertisements

About ColorStorm

Blending the colorful issues of life with the unapologetic truth of scripture.
Gallery | This entry was posted in Exhortation and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

64 Responses to Anchors, strangers, and voices oh my

  1. Ahh, lovely Colorstorm. It reminds me of John 10:27, and how “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.” Sheep really do that, they are tuned into the shepherds voice and if you are not the shepherd, those darn things won’t budge for you.

    Somebody smart once said, “the bible is the only book that the Author shows up to read to you.” That is like Living Water, it can only flow and resonate through you, if you are willing to listen. So, many can claim “I know more of scripture than believers,” and yet they prove over and over again that they do not “know.” They “know” only of two dimensional words, black markings on a white page.

    Liked by 2 people

    • ColorStorm says:

      Nice word there with ‘my sheep hear my voice’ insanitybytes22.

      How cool was the Lord saying ‘LAZARUS…………come forth.’ By name. Personally. Intimately. Of course, even the dead respond to the word of God……….

      A man nearing his final breath some time ago was heard to say, ‘bring me the scriptures!’ He wanted the last voice he heard on earth to be the voice of the word of God. Love that.

      But it is tiresome to hear people dismiss that which gives life, under the guise of providing another life, which is not ‘life.’ Yea, good luck with that.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. I’m looking forward to reading the subsequent discussion on this one for sure. sits down with bowl of popcorn Spot on, Colorstorm. 😉

    Liked by 1 person

  3. archaeopteryx1 says:

    Do you suppose those 19th century “investigators” were aware that 57 1/2 of the 66 books of the KJV Bible were written anonymously, by men about whose credentials we know nothing?

    Like

    • ColorStorm says:

      Hi there archx1, maybe somebody else would be happy to help you.

      Like

      • archaeopteryx1 says:

        Do you mean someone more knowledgeable than you? That could be almost anybody —

        Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          Yep, you are probably correct.

          I do confess to knowing only in part actually, but what little I do know, of that I am certain.

          A little about anchors, strangers, and voices

          Like

        • Neither do I claim to be an authority of any sort, but the fact that we know little of said writers’ credentials does not mean they had none. I’m not seeing what conclusion can be drawn from that statement.

          Like

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          Would you accept testimony in a court case from a witness who declined to tell you who he was or anything about himself that would lend credibility to his testimony? Or how about the testimony of one who got his “eyewitness” information from a friend of a friend of a friend of a friend –?

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          That’s why the geneologies are important in Matthew and Luke. Every link in the chain is as credible as the one before and after. Kind of hard to dismiss unless one was willfully rebellious.

          Not one of your cited ‘witnesses’ had an agenda, so unlike the unbelievers of today.

          How are they credible?
          Theopneustos- God breathed inspiration. Every word is verified within, is self proven unlike any other manuscript, and by the way, forever settled in heaven.

          Liked by 1 person

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          (EDIT)………….
          ………………..
          ………………….
          ……………………

          Simpler to fling scripture —

          EDIT: Please learn some manners in the home of a guest. (And you wonder WHY your incessant ramblings need monitored. What is it now, about fifty times you have made this lame charge.

          Like

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          I find it amusing that you are so fearful – you’re a shining example of what Christianity has to offer, CS.

          “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”
          — Mohandas Gandhi —

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          This coming from a person who thinks Christ is irrelevant. The double tongue is tiresome.
          Your tactics of magic would make Houdini jealous.

          Anchors, strangers, and voices, oh my. The post at hand never matters does it arch; you present your agenda including all the baggage.

          (I repeat: You wonder why you are moderated)

          Like

  4. john zande says:

    Great to see you’re quoting seriously contemporary scholars. Very impressive 😉

    True or not, Colorstorm:

    It is possible that a maximally wicked being exists.
    If it is possible that a maximally wicked being exists, then a maximally wicked being exists in some possible world.
    If a maximally wicked being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
    If a maximally wicked being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
    Therefore, a maximally wicked being exists in the actual world.
    Therefore, a maximally wicked being exists.
    Therefore, the Omnimalevolent Creator exists.

    Like

    • ColorStorm says:

      You may want to reread jz what you are commenting on.

      What quote are you speaking of? 2nd, your statement appears to be irrelevant, and probably is more suited for your place; just sayin.

      Like

      • john zande says:

        I did read your post. I found it interesting, if not somewhat outdated. It’s why I post the corollary. I wanted to know if you found it convincing as a proof for the Creator? Honest question.

        CS, are you going to release my comment? I’m simply asking an honest question.

        Why all the censorship?

        (CS sez: Patience is a good thing. Tkx anyway, but I’ll pass presently on your interest; just doesn’t have the flavor of this thread)

        Like

    • Gonna have to call you out on your third premise, John. I do not see how that follows.
      I love this argument; it is one of my favorites because it’s such a riddle. But it really only works if you replace “maximally wicked” with “almighty”.
      Peace.

      Like

      • john zande says:

        Hi Louis,

        Thanks for that feedback.

        I’m genuinely interested, why do you think Premise 3 falls short?

        Like

        • I just don’t see how it follows from the possible existence of an omnimalevolent being that it must exist in all possible worlds. I can see how it would follow that an omnipresent being would have to be present in all possible worlds. I can see how it would follow that an all-powerful being would have power over all possible worlds. But my understanding of the term “malevolent” is that it implies neither omnipresence nor unlimited power. That’s why I don’t see how it follows that an omnimalevolent being that exists in one possible world would exist in all of them, or if this is true of an omnimalevolent being why it wouldn’t be for an omnibenevolent one.
          Long response… hope you don’t mind. But you seemed interested. 🙂
          Out of curiosity, is this the thesis of your book of which I’ve heard?

          Liked by 1 person

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          Frankly, I see serious issues with the “First Cause” argument:

          1) Some things are caused.
          2) Everything that is caused is caused by something else.
          3) An infinite regress of causation is impossible.
          4) Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all that is caused.
          5) This cause, everyone calls God.

          First of all, 2 and 4 are in direct conflict with each other – both cannot possibly be true. Further, 3 is impossible to prove.

          Now see, CS – THIS is what a rational discussion looks like, just for future reference —

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          Yep, and you can argue for a thousand years and have no more understanding than you do today apart from God.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Hey, no need to apologize. Mea culpa for my part in cluttering your comment threads.

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          John invited you to his place. Louis. No worries on your part, I confess to not having the patience of Job.

          Liked by 2 people

        • I see your line of reasoning, but I don’t think the First Cause Argument is quite what John or I are getting at though. Perhaps that’s a discussion for another day? I say this with all due respect, but I’d rather not get more than one philosophical discussion on a post that isn’t really about philosophy.
          Peace to you.

          Like

        • john zande says:

          or if this is true of an omnimalevolent being why it wouldn’t be for an omnibenevolent one.

          CS sez-
          I am not promoting your book on this site, and am frankly tired of your petty claims against how I run a blog as you have stated once more.

          Sorry Louis.

          Liked by 1 person

  5. Wally Fry says:

    Hmm…credentials? How’s this for the dynamic duo there?

    In the beginning….God

    I AM

    Put away the pea shooters boys, you might shoot a toe off

    Liked by 1 person

    • ColorStorm says:

      That pea shooter is beginning to get a shelf life W.

      It has to be wearing out. But ‘in the beginning God?’ Yea, like there is an agenda.

      Ask Job how that agenda of belief in the true God worked out for him… oh wait, he had an Anchor, he heard not the voice of strangers…

      Like

      • Wally Fry says:

        Yeah, it might be growing old…LOL.

        Problem is, these folks are listening for the wrong words. God’s not saying much more than…repent..repent..turn. Take my gift of salvation.

        Do that, and you will hear more words than you can absorb in a lifetime.

        Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          Remember ‘may I say to ya,’ J. Vernon?

          His favorite word was ‘what more can He (God) say……………’ He was right entirely.

          Asking God to say ‘more’ or to prove Himself further is darn near insulting when the book covers it all.

          People want to hear not the song of the Creator, but their own song, hence the strange voice gets the attention.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Wally Fry says:

          Yep…May I say to ya friend…love him. Liked his radio show, used to listen to the podcast. Love his commentary series…simple, Biblical, and easy to understand

          Liked by 1 person

      • archaeopteryx1 says:

        For every link against Job, there are hundreds that prove him.” – Care to throw me a hundred or so?

        Like

    • Wally Fry says:

      Hi Arch..again.

      Do you see what I am talking about? I mean, is that really necessary? You constantly challenge believers to have reasonable discussion with you…yet you use terms like that. Will you pinch me on the cheek next? Surely you can see this for yourself. It’s not that people are running from you; it is that people simply don’t want to be constantly insulted and belittled. If that is what you think constitutes adult discourse then you are quite mistaken. In fact Arch, you are welcome to come over to my place anytime and comment as long as the comments bear some relation to the post. You surely can tell that my primary purpose blogging is to teach Bible lessons to other believers, and perhaps reach someone who might want to hear the Gospel. Hey, if you have an issue with my analysis of scripture, toss it out there. But that is not what you come over doing; you come over with the same tired argument you throw out constantly. Do you not see that your comments are basically the same no matter what is written in a post? I could write them myself and save you the time. Try that sometime Arch. Act like a grownup seeking grown up conversation rather than a middle schooler hurling taunts on the playground. You might be surprised at what would happen.

      Liked by 2 people

      • ColorStorm says:

        Yep, Wally, you nailed it.

        ‘Could have written it yourself.’ 😉

        Liked by 1 person

      • archaeopteryx1 says:

        Interestingly, Wally, I tried having a meaningful discussion with you on VW’s site today, and used absolutely NO derogatory terms, yet you still ran —

        Liked by 1 person

        • ColorStorm says:

          Ran? Hmmmm.

          Perhaps you would be wiling to consider the term, ‘running to and fro……………..seeking who they may devour…………….’

          The implications of this truth can be contained in one little word: ‘obvious.’

          Discernment is a great tool in the bag.

          Like

        • Wally Fry says:

          Arch

          I would agree you did and I thank you. I didn’t run. But once an impasse is reached, and we were at one, sometimes it’s best to just pull back and wait until the next time. Maybe keep anybody, including me from sliding into a bad place. I am sure we will meet again eh?

          Like

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          I think that’s a given.

          Liked by 1 person

  6. a million years ago, when I was in high school, a junior in high school to be exact, I participated in Young Life—it is a non denominational Christian organization for teens.
    My school’s chapter was small so we often met with other nearby schools groups.
    The YL leader assigned to our school would come visit, having lunch with us (this was a different time when you could actually have religious leaders come in to a school, lead a meeting, eat with the kids etc—often the local Rabbi and Catholic priest would come eat with the kids from their synagogue and parish youth groups—ahhhh, the good ol days– but I digress. . .)
    There was a boy who was a senior—football player, brilliant (received a scholarship to attend Harvard of which he did), good looking, musically talented yet was a non believer.
    I certainly had a crush.
    He began attending the YL meetings as they were alway publicized around school with posters advertising silliness, games and music, etc. . . we met weekly in the homes of various members.
    This boy was a non believer. Ardent. Yet he was curious and began coming weekly to the meetings.
    He would listen to others talk about their faith and their beliefs. He was thoughtful, digesting what he would hear, often countering with a con to everyone’s pro. He was so caught in the intellectual of the matter. Just as a scientist may try a myriad of experiments to pick apart and tease out any clue to a stated assumption or hypotheses , this young man would dig and dig some more.
    There was one time when we were hanging out and he had brought with him an entire index file of note cards, just like we would use when preparing to write a term paper—He’d carried out extensive research as to why there should be and why there should not be a God and a Savior.
    So much work to prove or disprove this utterly foreign and strange theory that he had stumbled upon. . .it was an enigma to him and he would not rest until he had exhausted his study.
    I don’t know what the revelation ever really was—but there was one. And it was big because I see the transformation. The intrinsic sign that he so tangibly sought was found, just as he was finally found. . .but there are those who will say that no one is really lost—but there we go again tit for tat. . .
    His life and the lives of those he went on to touch in Boston, were never quite the same. . .
    I lost track of him after college, but I would catch a word every now and then of his work with inner city kids up in Boston—-
    Funny how we all go about attempting to prove and disprove that which we often seek the hardest and the longest to find—as it just so happens to be right before our very eyes. . .
    Your talk of the “investigation” and “detective work” brought this memory flooding back.
    God reveals Himself to each of us in our own unique way of need—
    He’s good like that–
    sorry to ramble on so—
    Good stuff my friend. . .

    Liked by 3 people

  7. ColorStorm says:

    ‘He’s good like that.’

    Awesome line.

    I fail to see the ramble though….;) A million years ago? You mean yesterday…………….. tempus fugit-

    Like

  8. Peter says:

    An interesting fact to contemplate is one raised by Professor Dale Martyn in the course he runs at Yale University on the Introduction to the New Testament. Of the 5,500 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament now available, there is not one that is identical to another. That is from 5,500 manuscripts we have 5,500 different versions of the New Testament.

    Like

    • ColorStorm says:

      So then, of those copies, which is harder to believe that ‘in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth….’

      The translation issue is simply a smokescreen, and always steals from what is obvious.

      Like

    • Wally Fry says:

      Really Peter? That’s a big leap from being not identical to being actually different in substance. You need a bigger pea shooter. I’m pretty sure you grossly misrepresented the findings of that study.

      Liked by 2 people

  9. Tricia says:

    Very good post CS and loved the”borrowed heaps of rust” analogy as it’s so accurate. It’s the same ole same ole when it comes to pedestrian arguments against God, repeated over and over as if it were truth, or perhaps desperately trying to make it so. Fun to watch but I agree, quite embarrassing at the same time!

    By the way, I do enjoy good theological discussions with unbelievers if they come to the table with the intent to honestly debate and not belittle. Too often though their predetermined thinking on believers being mindless, brainwashed, emotionally troubled, etc….gets in the way of any productive discussion worth having.

    Like

    • Peter says:

      Tricia, to have a really productive debate, both sides need to be prepared to accept that there is a possibility their position is wrong. Atheists need to accept the possibility that God exists and that the Bible is God’s divine book. But in the same spirit Christians need to prepared to consider the possibility that God does not exist and that the Bible is a human book.

      I have rarely come across any discussions were either side is prepared to accept that the other sides position could be valid, let alone a discussion where both sides are prepared to serious examine the position of the other. That is why the debates end up being so unfruitful.

      Are you open to consider the arguments made by those who struggle to accept the Bible as a divine book?

      Liked by 1 person

      • ColorStorm says:

        CS SEZ:
        Peter- I have said on countless occasions that the scriptures need not defended. I have seen the commentary against the truth of God, and it is all the same. There are no new arguments.

        ‘In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth……………’ is the starting point for debate. You disagree. Anything after that is moot.

        If the very existence of God is challenged, it is further redundant to begin to discuss any thing else. It’s that simple. Perhaps you would like to discuss on your blog how it is possible that there is no God. It is an endless and unprofitable discussion; not interested here. ‘Blending the issues of life……….with the unapologetic truth of scripture………………’

        ‘Seeds of doubt’ serve no useful purpose, nor does endless debate on that which is clear as a bell. This is not a forum for the promotion of unbelief. Why? Because I am not ignorant of such devices.

        (By the way, your statement ‘Christians need to be prepared that God does not exist………….)

        But you make the mistake of thinking you have an equal argument against the God of heaven. Good luck with that.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Tricia says:

        You are right Peter, an open mind on both sides is required but one also needs to recognize when they are wading in areas they know very little about or only what’s been learned from biased sources. Plus, not all places are appropriate for debate. Once a little respectful back and forth has been done, it’s time to drop arms and realize you both are coming from very different places and give each other the freedom to hold different viewpoints. It need not be said I hope, that disrespectful comments and/or ones made purely for disruption are not worthy of debate.

        Like

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          It need not be said I hope, that disrespectful comments and/or ones made purely for disruption are not worthy of debate.
          Not Peter here, Tricia – he’s in Australia, and likely fast asleep – but I just wanted to add that I agree with you. But when a particular blog host takes one’s comments, originally quite respectful and intended only for the purpose of informing and debating, and deletes these or censors them severely, it isn’t long before newer comments tend to turn less respectful, the original respect shown not having been reciprocated, as it were.

          COUGH COUGH ARCH- Tell the truth. Here you had one more opportunity to ‘say’ something related to a short essay, but you choose to complain about your insane comments not being posted.

          How many times have your said ‘bronze stone age, iron, ignorant, superstitious, Moses never lived, Christ never said….. blah blah…’ It is tired, old, and it is not worthy of ‘debate.’

          Yes, and I toss every single one of those repeated parrot comments. ‘Polly got a cracker’ is wearing thin.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Peter says:

          I agree that civil and respectful discussion is the order of the day.

          As to biased sources, that is a tricky one. When I studied Biblical Hermeneutics we were taught that no-one comes to the text without pre-suppositions (a code word for bias). We can do little to put aside such biases, all we can really do is be aware of them.

          The big demarcation in Biblical studies is between those who see the Bible as the Divine Word of God and those who see the Bible as a human work. It is very hard to bridge this gulf. I had always been skeptical of the ‘Critical’ scholars. However since February I have been taking them seriously and have been astounded to find that there view of the Bible actually now makes more sense to me than the often tortured approach of the apologists.

          The birth narrative of Jesus is a case in point. If one compares the account in Luke’s Gospel to that in Matthew’s, there is virtually nothing in common. To reconcile the two accounts requires some very imaginative (implausible?) weaving together of events. The person of faith will say they can be reconciled. The person who sees the Bible as a human creation sees this as evidence that Matthew and Luke independently created birth accounts to deal with the problem that the Messiah was meant to born in Bethlehem, but Jesus was actually raised in Nazareth.

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          Petr-

          Try studying the scriptures your self, without aids, you may be surprised at the outcome.

          Every concern is within reach, and the more you study, the less you will need the ‘critics.’

          Faith comes by hearing the word of God.

          Liked by 1 person

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          Try studying the scriptures your self, without aids” – Peter – CS means try studying the scriptures devoid of the knowledge that they were written by anonymous, superstitious, scientifically-ignorant, Bronze and Iron Age men —

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          The thought occurred to me, and others are no doubt wondering, have you been banned from WP?

          Many people who are drunken say things they have regretted later…………..

          This is 51 times you have said this. The only reason I left it alone, is you are helping Peter see the total mind numbing and unreasonableness of militancy in a mind apart from God.

          Like

        • Tricia says:

          I know what you mean, I’ve gone through those struggles myself and after much study, thought and of course prayer have reconciled myself to those differences. It’s not as unimaginable as you might think, as there are many sources out there that counteract what you’re stating, it’s a process of choice combined with faith God’s wisdom.. If you’re already succumbing to your own human built in desire to rule your own self though, then yes, the choice becomes easier. Not right in my view, but much more clear.

          Liked by 2 people

        • Peter says:

          To give you an idea of where I have come from. The following was a note I wrote in 2010:

          I am a little wary of theological study, but need to progress this to be licensed as a Christian Minister. In mid August I had been reading a book regarding the Bible and made the mistake of reading some of the background on how the Bible was put together. I found it very disturbing as it implied that there was much dispute about what to include and what to exclude, implying it was mans decision. I went to bed that night quite dispirited and cried out to the Lord on the matter. The next morning the following words were on my heart, “Don’t you think me powerful enough to keep my Word true.” I then realised that whilst it might look to academics that human decisions were involved, behind the scenes our Heavenly Editor was ensuring everything was correct.

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          Question for you Peter, a serious question:

          Are there any defects in the person, work, and worth of Christ? Is He not enough to cover our lack of faith. Cannot He be trusted with our doubts? Does He not care? Does He not know our walking the fence?

          ALL attempts to influence a person under the guise of ‘scholarship’ that steers the ship from Christ is insulting to the Lord of heaven and earth.

          You are not the only one who has questioned the faith once delivered…………but God and His word are very good.

          Liked by 2 people

        • Tricia says:

          @CS’s response to Arch….He had ONE job, right? 😉

          Like

  10. Pingback: Citizen Tom

  11. Pingback: | Christians Anonymous

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s