R.C.Sprouls Teaching On Reformed Theology

Stop right there.What I have said is I cannot think of anyway to determine if someone is communicating with a God.I have never said that people cannot believe that God actually exists and interacts with them but no one has ever been able to explain how that is done.The facts though are as I posted and you quoted. How can it be otherwise?Just as with past authors, people today can only describe the God character they imagine exists.AbE:Look at the Biblical evidence.In Genesis 1 as well as Genesis 2&3 the God character is known only by his behavior, and the behavior of the two Gods is diametrically opposed.In other parts God is an off stage voice, a burning bush, a hand writing on the wall, an unknown stranger met unexpectedly. Even the actual name of God is not spoken. In the New Testament the God is more like the God of Genesis 1 than the God of any of the other Old Testament books; but still simply an offstage voice or the sender of messengers or testers.You are pretty much inline with all those past authors and facing much the same challenges.Edited by jar, : see AbE

If they were honest, they would at the very least have to acknowledge that they were embellishing. Otherwise, how do you account for the discrepancies?

Hmmm.
Embellish
I would argue that they would say they were elaborating...and were sticking to the truth as they understood it. Perhaps exaggeration would be inevitable, but they would likely defend their integrity. For examle, jar and I disagree on the character of GOD. jar says GOD is complete. I say GOD is good. GODmay well have created the possibility of evil, but this fact alone does not make GOD evil.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

How do you account for the discrepancies?

Human nature. Incorrect information. Perhaps even cultural bias.

So, in other words, there's no reason to think they knew what they were talking about, even if they BELIEVED they were telling The Truth™.

It starts with belief. Not with evidence. Thats why you never became a believer. You started with evidence.

What about when the evidence goes against the belief?

It seems that Joel Osteen and his popular brand of positive affirmations goes directly against the traditional beliefs of the late Dr.Sproul and his contemporaries. One of the speakers whom I have respected is Ravi Zacharias. Here he eloquently points out the deficiencies in Osteen's message:
A generation of people who deny Jesus Christ as the only way to God....sounds a bit like our do your best arguments here at EvC where we place the responsibility of being a good and honest person and doing your best above the traditional message regarding Christ.Edited by Phat, : spelling

And what is the traditional message regarding Christ?Phat, there is no one traditional message regarding Christ; rather there are a host of interpretations held by each Chapter of Club Christian.Or perhaps you mean traditional as what you want it to mean or what your Chapter of Club Christian wants it to mean?

The "traditional message" was as much about politics as it was about religion. The Church had a vested interest in a stable society, so "the responsibility of being a good and honest person and doing your best " was a message that made sense for them. It also gave the civil authorities an incentive to support the Church.The Church told people they'd go to Hell if they weren't good citizens. Today we can see that being good citizens can have a good effect here on earth.The outcome is the same. We're just being good for our own sake instead of for the Church's sake and the government's sake.

But what is the definition of a global consensus?Some would argue that a global consensus must involve answering the question that jesus asked peter: Who Do Men say tham I am? (...) Who do you say that I am?Others would argue that the only consensus that is important is being good for our own sake.Still others are always looking. Searching to solve the mystery.

I can give you an example: There's a global consensus that killing people is a bad thing. Remember that consensus doesn't require unanimity; there may be dissenters.But who said anything about a global consensus?

Jesus asked Peter a question which could be said to be for all people everywhere.Who do Men say that I am?Peter is being asked to stand on his own and distance himself from the crowd. So ringo, who was Jesus? Is he more than another in a long line of teachers? Why or why not?Granted the majority of the world did not have the opportunity to walk and talk with Jesus as Peter did. Some say that today's Christians should be genuine enough to walk with people as Jesus once did, but far too few Christians even measure up to the character of Jesus.

But according to the testimony found in the Bible Jesus character was not much different than any other human of the period; he had a temper, could be abrupt, self centered, unsure, remorseful, petulant, demanding, unreasonable and selfish.