Oh . . . you really don’t get it after …

Comment on Panda’s Thumb: ‘SDAs are split over evolution’ by Jim.

Oh . . . you really don’t get it after all, Sean, do you — I all of the sudden feel very badly for you, and quite genuinely sorry for some of the things I may have said about you.

I guess I kind of assumed that, with all your studies and research, you would have had a much better understanding of something as basic as the real role of the Holy Spirit in each of our lives . . .

Jim Also Commented

Panda’s Thumb: ‘SDAs are split over evolution’
For goodness sakes, Sean, in all of your many thousands of repetitive, ceaseless, monotonous, continual, ad nauseum (did I already say ‘repetitive’?) posts on this site, I don’t believe you’ve ever even acknowledged the existence, let alone the essential role of the Holy Spirit in our lives.

It is NOT up to ANY of us to try and lead one single person to Christ though the superiority of our ‘rational’ arguments, on any subject whatsoever — the Holy Spirit is the One, and the only One, who can convict people of the truth of Christ’s love and the saving sacrifice He has made for all of us.

Our sole value as believers is only realized when we fully submit ourselves to the leading of the Holy Spirit, and allow Him to use us as He sees fit, and not as we see fit.

Of course you are personally free to cling to your ‘superior’ rational arguments for your own particular creationist viewpoints, just as you graciously allow for others to hold their particular beliefs.

But it is the height of arrogance (and yes, Prof. Kent had it right calling it ‘blasphemy’) for you to attempt to usurp the rightful role of the Holy Spirit, by continually arguing for the supposed superiority of your own particular viewpoints, like they might convict even one person of God’s incredible love and sacrifice.

This Sabbath that is almost upon us might be an ideal time to spend reflecting on how much (or even if) we really allow the Holy Spirit to guide each of our lives.

At least think about giving the ‘superior rational arguments’ cudgel a rest for 24 hours or so, please?