In article <092.02.10.05.445501000@srcbs.org>, lsenders@hotmail.com says...
>

>Matthew Johnson wrote:
>> In article <091.11.16.05.112474000@srcbs.org>, lsenders@hotmail.com
>says...
>>
>> >1) Scripture is clear enough for even the simplest of minds to live
>by
>>
>> False. Even a cursory examination of how much the editions and
>translations
>> (into English) of Scripture have _changed_ over the last 300 years
>should show
>> how false this is.
>>
>IMHO, I feel that what another has just recently pointed out in
>questioning the definition of just what is the "church," just so here,
>what is meant by, "to live by."

Bad thinking usually hides behind such turgid prose! Where is your main verb?
Where is the verb of its subordinate clause?


> Children are best example I suppose.

Only if understood correctly. But you put on rose-colored glasses before making
the observations listed below. So your observations carry no weight.

>In having taught 5-8yrs old for a time in the inner city, I found that
>they had a very good grasp as to what the bible was teaching.

But wait a minute: this is just a fancy, maudlin excuse to try to fool me into
accepting _your_ authority! For you are _still_ expecting me to take _your_ word
for it when you say "they had a very good grasp".

Nice try, but no, I do NOT take your word for it. Nor should anyone else.

>
[snip]

>So your objection is baseless.

That does not follow. If you would not cover up the holes in your reasoning with
such maudlin, fallacious appeals to emotion, this would have been obvious to
you. It would have been obvious to your readers if you had not dishonestly
snipped without marking where you snipped.

> God is the Logos, even as you argue.
>It is He who reveals His word as He sees fit. His providence makes
>sure His word is not perverted and brings it to bear fruit as He so
>planned.

You are equivocating. It sounds like you are thinking of Jer 1:11-12 and
pretending the word 'word' is used in the same sense there as in John 1:1 and in
calling the Gospel "the Word of God".

>>
>> >2)Scripture is deep enough for readers of the highest intellectual
>> >ability to never exhaust appreciation or new insights
>>
>> True, but what does that have to do with PERSPICUITY? Nothing!
>>
>> >3) Scripture is clear in the essential matters
>>
>> Again, false. That is pure wishful thinking. And that it _is_ false
>is clearly
>> shown by the history of the Reformation, when so many groups popped
>up with
>> clearly contradictory lists of what the "essential matters" are. Too
>many of
>> them are still with us today. So much for "clear in essentials"!
>>
>Again, you should experience the