Deception Continued JED Norman Oetker .. English Class Reynosa Mae Hong Son Thailand Mexico St. Charles Missouri Hmong Missionary

Deception MEO L.A.M. Norman Oetker Missionary "The Light Amidst the Mong/MEO" Hmong Thailand, Reynosa Mexico, English Class, St. Charles Missouri US.

 WANTED… A WRITER FOR A BOOK ON MY LIFE AS A CHRISTIAN MISSIONARY

CONTACT: normanoetker@hotmail.com  October 2009

 
 
    Evidently, There Are Many, Which  I’m Sad To Say, That Represent An Ever Growing World Wide Number, Entering Into An Apostate Luke-Warm Religious State Of Mind, By Believing In Non Bible Plans Of Their Salvation.
     
    The Christian Believer’s Of Today, That Have, In fact, Surrendered Their Will’s And Therefore, Their Daily Lives To The Lord "Jesus," Doubtless, Will Reach Out And With Demonstrative Care, Compassion, And Love Teach The Bible’s Plan Of Salvation.

     

    The Evidence That One In fact Is Truly Saved, And Born Again. Indeed, Birthed, By A Holy God Through His Son The"Christ." This Christ, This "Jesus,"  Therefore, He "Christ" Resides In The Mind’s, and Heart’s Of The Believer, Enabling The Believer To Rightly Divide The Word Of Truth, The Bible. 

      • In Like Manner, Today, The Christian Believer’s Must Always Look To The Bible.

      • The "Fundamentals."

      • The Bible And The Bible Only Is Our Rule Of Faith.  

        • The True Purpose Of All Believer’s Is To Be Used By God As he See’s Fit.

        To Stand In The Downward Gap, Reaching Out With The Gospel Message Of Salvation, To Those Who Are Continually Drifting, From Salvation’s Reach.

         

        • Norman Oetker English Class Reynosa Mexico Hmong Missionary

        • What Are The Fundamentals? Do They Apply For Today?

         

        • Overview R.A. Torrey   

        • THE FUNDAMENTALS

        • R. A. Torrey B.D. D.D. 

        • B.D.  Bachelor of Divinity.

        • In Western Christian theology, a Bachelor of Divinity (BD or BDiv) is usually an undergraduate academic degree awarded for a courses taken in the study of divinity or related disciplines, such as theology or, rarely, religious studies.

        • D.D.   Doctor Of Divinity

        • Doctor of Divinity (D.D., Divinitatis Doctor in Latin) is an advanced academic degree in divinity. Historically, it identified one who had been licensed by a university to teach Christian theology or related religious subjects.

           

          • In The Early 1900s Many Christians Found Themselves Fighting Against The Liberalism That Was Creeping Into The Church.

          • This gave them a desire to set forth the fundamentals of the Christian faith.

          • The task to compile such works defending the Scriptures was given first to A. C. Dixon, then to Louis Meyer, and then ultimately to R. A. Torrey.

          • They compiled the works of many conservative writers and issued them in twelve volumes (later printed in a four-volume set).

          • Included in their work are articles dealing with the fallacies of higher criticism, the inspiration and unity of Scripture, the archeological attestation of Scripture, the divinity of Christ and the Holy Spirit, justification by faith, personal testimonies and much more.

          • This work became known as The Fundamentals.

          • The importance of The Fundamentals was that it showed that there are very reasonable defenses to answer claims against Scripture.

          • This is the unabridged edition which features ninety different articles by sixty-six authors

           

          Missionary Norman Oetker English Class Reynosa

          The Eight Fallacy Of the Higher Critics.

          How Did They Begin? What Is Meant By JED? 

          Quick Overview See Three Points Below.

           

          • (1) A writer designated as J. Jahvist, or Jehovist, or Judean prophetic historian, composed a history of the people of Israel about 800 B. C.

          • (2) A writer designated as E. Elohist, or Ephraemite prophetic historian, wrote a similar work some fifty years later, or about 750 B. C. These two were used separately for a time, but were fused together into JE by a redactor [an editor], at the end of the seventh century.

          • (3) A writer of different character wrote a book constituting the main portion of our present Deuteronomy during the reign of Josiah, or a short time before 621 B. C. This writer is designated.as D. To his work were added an introduction and an appendix, and with these accretions it was united with JE by a second redactor, constituting JED.

           

          • Norman Oetker English Class Reynosa Mae Hong Son Thailand Mexico St. Charles Missouri Hmong Missionary.

          • The Eight Fallacy Of The Higher Critics In Brief Below.

           

          • First Fallacy: The Analysis of the Pentateuch.
          • Second Fallacy Of The Higher Criticism is its dependence on the theory of evolution as the explanation of the history of literature and of religion.

          • Third Fallacy: The Bible a Natural Book.

          • Fourth Fallacy: The Miracles Denied.

          • Fifth Fallacy: The Testimony of Archaeology Denied.

          • Sixth Fallacy: The Psalms Written after the Exile.

          • Seventh Fallacy: Deuteronomy Not Written by Moses.

          • Eighth Fallacy: The Priestly Legislation Not Enacted Until the Exile.

            

           

           

          • The Fallacies of the Higher Criticism

            By Franklin Johnson, D.D., LL.D. 

          • Definition of "The Higher Criticism."

             

            • As an introduction to the fundamental fallacies of the higher criticism, let me state what the higher criticism is, and then what the higher critics tell us they have achieved.

            • The name "the higher criticism" was coined by Eichhorn, who lived from 1752 to 1827. Zenos,* [* "The Elements of the Higher Criticism."] after careful consideration, adopts the definition of the name given by its author:

            • "The discovery and verification of the facts regarding the origin, form and value of literary productions upon the basis of their internal characters."

            • The higher critics are not blind to some other sources of argument.

            • They refer to history where they can gain any polemic advantage by doing so.

                Polemic

                1. a controversial argument, as one against some opinion, doctrine, etc.

                2. a person who argues in opposition to another; controversialist.

                 

              • The Background Of The Entire picture which they bring to us is the assumption that the hypothesis of  EVOLUTION is true.

              • But After All Their Chief appeal is to the supposed evidence of the documents themselves.

             

            • Norman Oetker English Class Reynosa Mae Hong Son Thailand Mexico St. Charles Missouri Hmong Missionary

            • The Writer’s Of the Fundamentals are disagreeing in no uncertain terms, with the felonious attempt  (felonious means in it’s basic form as wicked and evil) of the higher critics in their justification- in their unconceivable attempt in discrediting that the Bible, even in it’s "Inspiration."

            • Their Introduction Of The Different Writers and their varied opinions on the actual years that the biblical stories were written. These writer’s insist  on their understanding as their proof positive, that Moses did not write his parts of the Bible.

            • This Group Assumed Their Interpretations Of The JED Were Correct.

            • Point In Fact, They Are In Error And Judgement Will Be Meet By The Almighty.

             

            • Norman Oetker English Class Reynosa Missionary October 2008.

             

            • I wish I could write and say that after this wonderful expositions of our faith in God and our Bible, that all is well now in this year of 2008 however, to the contrary, it is not well.

                This same heresy is well underway yet today, the controversy now is named the "Fundamentalist Modernist Controversy."  However, you might be surprised at the leaders now of this same heresy of the past, this group, as well as others have in fact usurped their authority  over the Inspiration of the Bible, in their own introduction of their own private interpretations of scriptures. HERESEY     

               

              Further Comments By R.A. Torrey Below.

               

              • R.A. Torrey Continues….."ASSURED RESULTS" OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM.

              • I Turn Now To Ask What The Higher Critics profess to have found out by this method of study.

              • The "Assured Results" on which they congratulate themselves are stated variously.

              • In This Country And England they commonly assume a form less radical than that given them in Germany, though sufficiently startling and destructive to arouse vigorous protest and a vigorous demand for the evidences, which, as we shall see, have not been produced and cannot be produced.

              • The Less Startling Form of the "assured results" usually announced in England and America may be owing to the brighter light of Christianity in these countries. Yet it should be noticed that There are higher critics in this country and England who go beyond the principal German representatives of the school in their zeal for the dethronement of the Old Testament and the New, in so far as these’ holy books are presented to the world as the very Word of God, as a special revelation from heaven.

             

             

            Norman Oetker English Class Reynosa Missionary October 2008.

            It Will be Plain To See By Our Current History And Now, Today’s Stated Positions By The Leading Group Opposed To Bible Inspiration.

            Once Again a Secular Minded Group Had Brought To The For-front, That Their Own Private Interpretations, Is The View That They Hold To More Importantly Than To The Inspiration Of The Bible And It’s Scriptures. Please See Below.

             

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princeton_Theological_Seminary

            Legacy of the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy

            As a result of the departure of Machen and the denominational conservatives, especially of the Old School, the shape of the Presbyterian Church in the USA (and ultimately, its successor denomination, the Presbyterian Church (USA)) as a broad, inclusive church was secured. Not all who remained in the PCUSA were modernists or liberals, but those theological conservatives who remained in the denomination were willing to co-exist institutionally with liberals and modernists.

            In the course of the twentieth century, this commitment to tolerance of diverse opinions within the church would be tested repeatedly over issues such as Christ’s role in salvation, the ordination of women and homosexuals and the church’s position on political and social questions, such as temperance, abortion, and the state of Israel.

            The dispute between the fundamentalists and modernists would be played out in nearly every Christian denomination. By the 1920s, it was clear that every mainstream Protestant denomination was going to be willing to accommodate modernism, with the exception of the Presbyterians and Southern Baptists, where it was still unclear.

            When the outcome of the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy brought the Presbyterians into the camp willing to accommodate modernism, this left the Southern Baptists as the only mainstream denomination where fundamentalists were still "in play" within the denomination.

            Fundamentalists and modernists would continue to struggle within the Southern Baptist Convention and the triumph of fundamentalist views in that denomination would not be secure until the 1970s.

            Since the Southern Baptists are the only mainstream denomination where the fundamentalists were successful in their fight against modernists, many observers would no longer classify the Southern Baptists as a "mainstream" denomination.

            The social tensions and prejudices created by the Fundamentalist-Modernist split would remain very active within American Christianity into the twenty-first century, with modernists and their moderate allies seeing fundamentalists as backwards and intolerant, and fundamentalists seeing modernists and their allies as overly willing to compromise with the forces of secularism, abandoning authentic Christianity in the process.

            The controversy also sheds some light on the differences between "fundamentalist" and "evangelical" Christianity: fundamentalists are those like Machen who in the 1920s and 1930s withdrew from the mainstream denominations and educational institutions, advocating separatism as the only way to preserve Christian purity; while evangelicals are more in the spirit of Macartney, seeking to engage the forces of secularism rather than withdrawing. (Harold Ockenga, founder of the National Association of Evangelicals, in fact spent time working as assistant pastor under Macartney in Pittsburgh.)

             

             

          • Fundamentals Norman Oetker English Class Reynosa Thailand Mexico St. Charles Missouri Hmong Missionary.

            • Norman Oetker English Class Reynosa Missionary October 2008. Below is just one of the many articles written about the fallacy of this group of  Higher Critics. For the complete articles of all of the writers against this heresy, one can go to blueletterbible.com

              • This list of authors, are the Fundamentalist.  "PRAISE BE TO GOD!"   

               

            • The Fallacies of the Higher Criticism

            • By Franklin Johnson, D.D., LL.D.

              LL.D. An honorary law degree.  

               

              The errors of the higher criticism of which I shall write pertain to its very substance. Those (if a secondary character the limits of my space forbid me to consider. My discussion might be greatly expanded by additional masses of illustrative material, and hence I close it with a list of books which I recommend to persons who may wish to pursue the subject further.

              Definition of "The Higher Criticism."

              As an introduction to the fundamental fallacies of the higher criticism, let me state what the higher criticism is, and then what the higher critics tell us they have achieved.

              The name "the higher criticism" was coined by Eichhorn, who lived from 1752 to 1827. Zenos,* [* "The Elements of the Higher Criticism."] after careful consideration, adopts the definition of the name given by its author: "The discovery and verification of the facts regarding the origin, form and value of literary productions upon the basis of their internal characters." The higher critics are not blind to some other sources of argument. They refer to history where they can gain any polemic advantage by doing so. The background of the entire picture which they bring to us is the assumption that the hypothesis of evolution is true. But after all their chief appeal is to the supposed evidence of the documents themselves.

              Other names for the movement have been sought. It has been called the "historic view," on the assumption that it represents the real history of the Hebrew people as it must have unfolded itself by the orderly processes of human evolution. But, as the higher critics contradict the testimony of all the Hebrew historic documents which profess to be early, their, theory might better, be called the "unhistoric view."

              The higher criticism has sometimes been called the "documentary hypothesis."

              But as all schools of criticism and all doctrines of inspiration are equally hospitable to the supposition that the biblical writers may have consulted documents, and may have quoted them, the higher criticism has no special right to this title.

              We must fall back, therefore, upon the name "the higher criticism" as the very best at our disposal, and upon the definition of it as chiefly an inspection of literary productions in order to ascertain their dates, their authors, and their value, as they themselves, interpreted in the light of the hypothesis of evolution, may yield the evidence.

               

              "ASSURED RESULTS" OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM.

               

              I turn now to ask what the higher critics profess to have found out by this method of study.

              The "assured results" on which they congratulate themselves are stated variously.

              In this country and England they commonly assume a form less radical than that given them in Germany, though sufficiently startling and destructive to arouse vigorous protest and a vigorous demand for the evidences, which, as we shall see, have not been produced and cannot be produced.

              The less startling form of the "assured results" usually announced in England and America may be owing to the brighter light of Christianity in these countries. Yet it should be noticed that There are higher critics in this country and England who go beyond the principal German representatives of the school in their zeal for the dethronement of the Old Testament and the New, in so far as these’ holy books are presented to the world as the very Word of God, as a special revelation from heaven.

              The following statement from Zenos [Page 205] may serve to introduce us to the more moderate form of the "assured results" reached by the higher critics. It is concerning the analysis of the Pentateuch, or rather of the Hexateuch, the Book of Joshua being included in the survey. "The Hexateuch is a composite work whose origin and history may be traced in four distinct stages:

              (1) A writer designated as J. Jahvist, or Jehovist, or Judean prophetic historian, composed a history of the people of Israel about 800 B. C.

              (2) A writer designated as E. Elohist, or Ephraemite prophetic historian, wrote a similar work some fifty years later, or about 750 B. C. These two were used separately for a time, but were fused together into JE by a redactor [an editor], at the end of the seventh century.

              (3) A writer of different character wrote a book constituting the main portion of our present Deuteronomy during the reign of Josiah, or a short time before 621 B. C. This writer is designated.as D. To his work were added an introduction and an appendix, and with these accretions it was united with JE by a second redactor, constituting JED.

              (4) Contemporaneously with Ezekiel the ritual law began to be reduced to writing. It first appeared in three parallel forms. These were codified by Ezra not very much earlier than 444 B. C., and between that date and 280 B.C. it was joined with JED by a final redactor. Thus no less than nine or ten men were engaged in the production of the Hexateuch in its present form, and each one can be distinguished from the rest by his vocabulary and style and his religious point of view."

              Such is the analysis of the Pentateuch as usually stated in this country.

              But in Germany and Holland its chief representatives carry the division of labor much further.

              Wellhausen distributes the total task among twenty-two writers, and Kuenen among eighteen.

              Many others resolve each individual writer into a school of writers, and thus multiply the numbers enormously.

              There is no agreement among the higher critics concerning this analysis, and therefore the cautious learner may well wait till those who represent the theory tell him just what it is they desire him to learn.

              While some of the "assured results" are thus in doubt, certain things are matters of general agreement.

              Moses wrote little or nothing, if he ever existed.

              A large part of the Hexateuch consists of unhistorical legends.

              We may grant that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Ishmael and Esau existed, or we may deny this.

              In either case, what is recorded of them is chiefly myth.

              These denials of the truth of the written records follow as matters of course from the late dating of the books, and the assumption that the writers could set down only the national tradition.

              They may have worked in part as collectors of written stories to be found here and there; but, if so, these written stories were not ancient, and they were diluted by stories transmitted orally.

              These fragments, whether written or oral, must have followed the general law of national traditions, and have presented a mixture of legendary chaff, with here and there a grain of historic truth to be sifted out by careful winnowing.

              Thus far of the Hexateuch.

              The Psalms are so full of references to the Hexateuch that they must have been written after it, and hence after the captivity, perhaps beginning about 400 B. C.

              David may possibly have written one or two of them, but probably he wrote none, and the strong conviction of the Hebrew people that he was their greatest hymn-writer was a total mistake.

              These revolutionary processes are carried into the New Testament, and that also is found to be largely untrustworthy as history, as doctrine, and as ethics, though a very good book, since it gives expression to high ideals, and thus ministers to the spiritual life.

              It may well have influence, but it can have no divine authority.

              The Christian reader should consider carefully this invasion of the New Testament by the higher criticism.

              So long as the movement was confined to the Old Testament many good men looked on with indifference, not reflecting that the Bible, though containing "many parts" by many writers, and though recording a progressive revelation, is, after all, one book.

              But the limits of the Old Testament have long since been overpassed by the higher critics, and it is demanded of us that we, abandon the immemorial teaching of the church concerning the entire volume.

              The picture of Christ which the New Testament sets before us is in many respects mistaken.

              The doctrines of primitive Christianity which it states and defends were well enough for the time, but have no value for us today except as they commend themselves to our independent judgment.

              Its moral precepts are fallible, and we should accept them or reject them freely, in accordance with the greater light of the twentieth century.

              Even Christ could err concerning ethical questions, and neither His commandments nor His example need constrain us.

              The foregoing may serve as an introductory sketch, all too brief, of the higher criticism, and as a basis of the discussion of its fallacies, now immediately to follow.

               

              Norman Oetker English Class Reynosa Missionary October 2008. 

              Articles written about the fallacy of this group of  Higher Critics.

              For the complete articles of all of the writers against this heresy, one can go to blueletterbible.com

              • This list of authors, are the Fundamentalist.  "PRAISE BE TO GOD!"   

               

              • Fundamentals Norman Oetker English Class Reynosa Thailand Mexico St. Charles Missouri Hmong Missionary

            • Jobs Moving Norman Oetker .. English Class Reynosa Mae Hong Son Thailand Mexico St. Charles Missouri Hmong is Missionary. To Mexico Now Why? Potential Tax Policy Change Maybe in Future For Business’s Doing Business In Mexico From A New President In US..
              Reynosa Manufacturing Norman Oetker.. English Class Mae Hong Son Thailand Mexico St. Charles Missouri Hmong Missionary.