Strives to unite, assist and educate members, to promote fair trade, and to create a positive image of the industry. Includes directory of member businesses.

Sells used trucks and equipment. Repair facility and warranty center. Grand Rapids, Traverse City, Gaylord, St. Joseph and Livonia.

on Feb 11, 2005, at 1:58 pm gpat...@bayou.com wrote:

>>> Tracy Hall wrote:



>> I believe that Jesus was the only exception. The saints,
>> including Job and others to whom the scriptures refer
>> as "perfect of heart," "perfect in their generation,"
>> etc., surely sinned at some point in their life.

> OK, but as for me, I will stick with the story of Job as
> told in scripture. If the author of the book of Job had wanted
> us to think that Job sinned, he would not have said twice
> that Job was perfect, upright and unlike any other person
> on earth. Why not just accept the story of Job as is? I look
> at it this way: If scripture seems to not be compatible with
> doctrine, rather than modify scripture, it is better
> [to] modify doctrine.

I do believe that Job was perfect, upright, and unlike any
other person *at the time of the scriptural account.* But
Paul says that all [but Christ] have sinned. (Rom. 3:10,
23; 5:12)

I don't want to defend any doctrine, but I do seek for
harmony in the scriptures. So it seems to me, If all have
sinned at some point in their lives, then Job must have
committed some kind of sin earlier in his life. Then, prior
to our joining his story, Job must have exercised faith in
Christ, repented of his sins, and been sanctified through the
Gospel, thereby becoming of "good report." (Heb. 11)

Whatever Job's condition was long before we join his
story, surely the grace of Christ was sufficient for him,
as it was for Paul, the confessed sinner. (2 Cor. 12: 9)


Tracy Hall
Hthalljr'gmail'com

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))

matthew_member@newsguy.com wrote...
> In article , fred says...
>
> >Hello fellow Christians,
>
> >Would somebody please define what the so-called christian fundamentals
> >are?
>
> I hope you will not be too surprised to find how much people differe
> even about what these 'fundamentals' are.

Satan has certainly successfully created controversy and pointless
debate within the Body of Christ.

In the Protestant branch of Christianity, "the fundamentals" usually
refers to this:

http://www.xmission.com/~fidelis/

Matthew will argue about this because he can't help himself. I won't
reply to it. I'm not an apologist for The Fundamentals, nor am I
going to be an agent for dissent with the Body of Christ.

I hope this is close to the answer the original poster was seeking.

> > I gather that Christians themselves probably coined the term as a
> >way