Would he do it thataway?

The curses toward us cannot stand!
They’ve been come too bad out of hand.
From Luther on down,
we’ve ne’er a smile, but a frown;
from the guys who think A cappella’s a band.

I don’t know.

My mom was a faithfully attending Catholic and liked Billy Graham.

My dad didn’t for either.

Actually; I’ve hit myself on the head!

From the apple tree’s low laying limbs; on the mower; removing the devilish grass, much way too fast.

See what having a longer memory span can get ya?

Fame!

This is not a forum to school you on the absolute truths of Catholicism.

Lurkers!

You can go back to the political forum now.

John 3: 1 Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus who was a member of the Jewish ruling council. 2 He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.”

3 Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.”

4 “How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”

5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7 You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”

9 “How can this be?” Nicodemus asked.

10 “You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things? 11 Very truly I tell you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. 12 I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? 13 NO ONE HAS EVER GONE INTO HEAVEN EXCEPT THE ONE WHO CAME FROM HEAVEN—THE SON OF MAN. 14 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15 that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.”

Maybe after reading this you may like to take cover under a roc.

You may indeed, by God's grace as after my last one to you.

The Great Commission is confined to Peter and his successors. Not to every “Bible Christian” from Joel Osteen to Jim Jones.

The Church believes that when the bishops speak as teachers, Christ speaks; for he said to them: “He who hears you, hears me; and he who rejects you, rejects me” (Lk 10, 16).

Therefore those doing effectual ministry in the name of Christ who are separate from the company or otherwise are not sanctioned by the (pseudo) successors of the apostles, have no authority to do so, as they actually do not operate in the name of the Lord, and thus are to be censured?

In addition,

Why was a successor for Judas chosen, but not one for James (or why would the Holy Spirit not consider it important to note this)?

For what foundational purpose was only one successor for Judas chosen, which purpose Rome maintains?

Why are there zero instructions on choosing an apostolic successor except for one, which qualifications and non-political) method Rome has not followed once?

What office does an apostle charge with being overseers of the church, for which instructions for perpetuation are given?

What what was the normative marital state for these overseers, (and the apostles)?

What are these overseers called, and what distinctive title are they not called, but which Catholicism uses.

Maybe the blogger knows something more that St. Irenaeus and St. Ignatius

Maybe the blogger knows something more about St. Irenaeus and St. Ignatius than they RC is willing to agree with, as when Victor wanted to excommunicate all the churches of Asia Minor, then he was rebuked by Irenaeus. And criticizes heretics because "they gather their views from other sources than the Scriptures." (Against Heresies 1:8:1) which he called"the foundation and pillar of our faith," (' Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3,1) Irenaeus (and Tertullian) also recalled occasions on which, as they read the gospel stories, she had earned her son's rebuke, (J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian doctrines, p. 493)

Much more can be provided, and the point is that while such supported things Rome distinctively teaches, yet they also rejected others, and differed among themselves (and were also developing their theology), and stand in contrast to wholly inspired Scripture, and thus are not fit to be determinative of doctrine, nor are they for Rome, who judges them more than they judge her.

If oral tradition is not to be followed, why did St. Paul state that Christ said something that is not recorded in the Gospels (Acts 20:35)?

While "It is more blessed to give than to receive" is the sum of what the Lord taught in Luke14:12-14, it is stated here as words of Christ because God is faithful to ensure that what He wanted to be preserved would be in Scripture. Consider that according to your logic, since the world could not hold the books needed for record what Christ alone said and did (even if this is hyperbole), as well as what any man of God said, then an virtual bottomless pit of events and words can be claimed to be authentic.

The veracity of which is not because it has been established as wholly inspired Scripture (essentially due to its unique and enduring heavenly qualities and attestation), but the veracity of which is based upon the the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome (and basically in primary cults).

The Bible itself states that there are “oral” teachings and traditions that are to be carried on to the present-day (2 Thessalonians 2:15; 1 Corinthians 11:2; 2 Timothy 2:2; Romans 10:17; 1 Peter 1:24-25).

And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, (Acts 17:2)

It is true that the Lord and His apostles did provide new public revelation, and wholly inspired words of God, but neither of which Rome claims to do, while channeling doctrines out of her amorphous mysterious oral tradition, which teaching is not wholly inspired words of God, nor does it need actual Scriptural proof or even historical warrant from its time, leaving its veracity resting upon the novel, unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility.

Ratzinger writes (emp. mine), Before Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven was defined, all theological faculties in the world were consulted for their opinion. Our teachers' answer was emphatically negative . What here became evident was the one-sidedness, not only of the historical, but of the historicist method in theology. “Tradition” was identified with what could be proved on the basis of texts. Altaner, the patrologist from Wurzburg…had proven in a scientifically persuasive manner that the doctrine of Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven was unknown before the 5C; this doctrine, therefore, he argued, could not belong to the “apostolic tradition. And this was his conclusion, which my teachers at Munich shared.

But,

subsequent “remembering” (cf. Jn 16:4, for instance) can come to recognize what it has not caught sight of previously [because the needed evidence was absent] and was already handed down in the original Word” [via invisible, amorphous oral tradition] - J. Ratzinger, Milestones (Ignatius, n.d.), 58-59.

Besides it is the word of God that must be preserved as part of the Great Commission to “Go forth and teach..”

Yet as is abundantly evidenced, that the word of God/the Lord was normally written, even if sometimes first being spoken, and that as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.

And which testifies (Lk. 24:27,44; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23, etc.) to writings of God being recognized and established as being so (essentially due to their unique and enduring heavenly qualities and attestation), and thus they materially provide for a canon of Scripture (as well as for reason, the church, etc.)

And Manning,

The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour.

Thus the now classic quote by Keating: “the mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275.

These teachings are what the Catholic Church considers “Sacred Apostolic Tradition.” This type of “Tradition” never changes because it was passed down by the Apostles’ themselves.

Which is merely propaganda, while Rome significantly differs with the EOs' as regards what Tradition actually teaches, even on papal infallibility, and has redefined what she actually means (including EENS ), thus resulting in schisms and sects.

Did the early Christians have the Bible as we know it? No. The Bible as a whole was not compiled until the late 4th century and then it was compiled by a Catholic saint (St. Jerome) at the request of a Catholic pope (St. Damasus I).

Wrong as all the writings existed for over 200 years by then, and as the canon was basically established, though scholarly disagreement continued down thru the centuries and right into Trent, which provided the first "infallible" indisputable canon for RCs (even the EOs is not exactly the same), thus Jerome knew what to include, and rejected the apocryphal books as Scripture proper, though like Luther's Bible, they were included in most of the Vulgates.

So how were the early Christians saved if they did not possess the entire written “Word of God” to follow His teachings? Well, naturally, they were the Body of Christ and were taught through “oral” teachings by the Church, not by writings.

Under that erroneous Roman reasoning OT saints must be have needed the Jewish traditions, such as the Talmud (the written record of an oral tradition) provides with their superstitions, which they justify upon the same reasoning as Rome.

And as Rome (only thinking of herself) argues that one needs faith in the the instruments and stewards of Holy Writ, and the historical magisterium in order to even know what it consist of and means, then 1st century souls should have submitted to those who sat in the seat of Moses.

Here’s what Martin Luther, the primary progenitor of Protestant heresies was forced to admit. In his “Commentary On St. John,” he stated the following: We are compelled to concede to the Catholic Church “that they have the Word of God, that we have received It from them, and that without them we should have no knowledge of It at all.”

Here’s what Martin Luther said in context , which if you had researched, then you could have seen, by God's grace, that this actually part of a polemic that renders Rome no more worthy of assent than the Jews.

For as just said, "that they have the Word of God, that we have received It from them" meant the Jews when the church began, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23)

And if your assertion that "the Catholic Church gave us the Bible" is to have any polemical weight, it must mean that the instruments and stewards of Holy Writ under the historical magisterium is essential to even know what it consist of and means, and are to be submitted to. Which means that you, along with others who made this argument, have also effectively nuked the NT church.

For instead of following the Roman model, under which "the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors," (VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906) and thus a faithful RC is not to seek to ascertain the veracity of RC teaching by examination of evidences For to do so would be to doubt the claims of Rome to be the assuredly infallible magisterium by which a RC obtains assurance of Truth;

Instead the NT church began because souls followed itinerant preachers whom the magisterium rejected, and whom their itinerant Leader reproved from Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

What is lacking today is the manner of manifest men of God who could say

But in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses, In stripes, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labours, in watchings, in fastings; By pureness, by knowledge, by longsuffering, by kindness, by the Holy Ghost, by love unfeigned, By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left, (2 Corinthians 6:4-7)

Under which the NT church saw its degree of limited unity of heart and basic Truths. Thus the divisions are fitting, while Rome's alternative of sola ecclesia, under the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, is essentially cultic, and not NT Christian.

And as under that model souls are to follow leadership over unchanging Scripture, then when the former goes South then so do the people, then having lost her unholy power of the sword of men, then the fruit of Rome is largely liberal, with even proabortion/sodomite pols being treated as members in life and in death.

Which, unlike evangelicals, RCs cannot obey the Biblical injunction to be separate from such, (2Cor. 6:14-18) but must be yoked with unless they become part of schisms or sects, while those who hold most strongly to the primary evangelical distinctive in holding Scripture as the wholly inspired and accurate, basically literal word of God are the most unified in conservative basic beliefs.

Thus once again your attempted polemic has served to expose the fallacious nature of it and of your elitist church, in contrast to the NT church which she imagines herself to be.

Fortunately, a number of Lutheran and Evangelical theologians...

You continued to engage in this fallacious premise that presumes that what the lettered elites believe is to be followed, when most of such in Rome are liberal, and (once again) the church began contrary to that premise:

Then came the officers to the chief priests and Pharisees; and they said unto them, Why have ye not brought him? The officers answered, Never man spake like this man. Then answered them the Pharisees, Are ye also deceived? Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him? But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed. (John 7:45-49)

For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: (1 Corinthians 1:26-28)

How do we know the Catholic Church is the ONE true Church? Hear it from a convert...

How do we know the Catholic Church is NOT the ONE true Church? You have heard it from a convert..

You are talking to a former RC who raised devout, but who was manifestly born again, with its profound changes in heart and life (though in need of more growth, still), while a weekly practicing RC in 1977 (evangelical radio helped). And who sought to serve God after that as a CCD teacher and lector, and never missed mass for about 6 years, until the Lord manifestly led me to an evangelical church in response to sincere prayer, due to the deadness of Rome and her unScriptural teachings.

And as such i well know the vast differences btwn regeneration and institutionalized religion, which is more form than reality, and in which i rarely found someone else who realized what i did as a result of regeneration, which included an insaitiable hunger to know how to please God according to Scripture (evangelical radio and being a truck driver helping, praise God). And i can honestly say that it is Rome which is mostly dead, with a dead gospel, dead prelates and dead pews, which lust to get some evangelical converts as they bring some life to them.

>>>This is not a forum to school you on the absolute truths of Catholicism. I have purposely avoided citing the writings of renowned Catholic theologians like Augustine, Aquinas, Newman Benedict (after whom colleges and universities have been named and their writings form part of the standard theological curriculum even in Evangelical colleges.).<<<

Yeah - Elsie did that for you with Augustine and schooled you royally.

>>>I have tried to present in summary form those Protestant theologians who after years of study and scholarship, some trying to prove that Catholicism is wrong, actually ended up converting to Catholicism.<<<

I probably have more hours of actual hands-on biblical research than those whom you quote. Your constant appeals to authority do not impress me. Your authorities do not impress me.

>>>Here’s an example of sheer nonsense. He tells us:

“Why would Jesus say, “For God so loved the world” - past tense? Why would He not have said, “For God so loves the world” - present tense? Would it not make more sense, if God does indeed love the world?”

It does not occur to Deprogrammerliberalism that when we discuss God doing an action from outside time, we are often stuck with either using past tense or present tense when really God’s actions are not past, present or future, they are all of them and none of them.<<<

My goodness, aren't we full of surprises today - you actually addressed a scriptural quote. Perhaps tomorrow you'll read some Scripture.

On the contrary, it has indeed occurred to me, Steelfish - I have written a whole book on God's relationship with time.

Nowhere in the Scriptures is it suggested that God must be separate from time for Him to be immutable, or that He is omniscient of all things for all time. These are Gnostic/Greek philosophical presuppositions around which certain Scriptures have since been selectively interpreted to uphold. Gnostic and Christian doctrines (and sects) battled for dominance throughout the early centuries of the Church, no doubt with Gnostic influence accounting for many of the Church traditions proceeding from that age, including this idea that God is separate from time. Augustine finally gave in to the Gnostics' argument. But the Scriptures emphatically teach that God experiences time and relates to His creation exclusively so. Not one conversation between any man or angel and God presumes that God knows all of the future as absolute. Not even one. Indeed, in my book, MetaChristianity - Unlocking Temporal Bible Mysteries I present dozens of examples of God interacting with others solely based on the presumption that God is in time just like every other being. Here is one example:

===

Let's take a look at the longest philosophical discussion in the Bible on God's relationship to His creation - Job.

For forty-two wordy Old Testament chapters five men and God Himself have at it about God's relationship to His creation, mankind, and their relationship with Him. Add in a smattering of sons of God and even the devil himself in the first couple of chapters, and you have a series of philosophical discussions unlike any others in history. Here are just a few of the topics covered:

Do temporal blessings from God prove one's righteousness?

Are the sacrifices of a loving and concerned father for his sons and daughters enough to satisfy God?

Do men fear God because of His blessings or the anxiety of losing them?

Does suffering and tragedy tell us the mind of God?

Does God test us with suffering and tragedy?

Is Satan an agent of God?

Does Satan incite God?

Does our current situation in life reflect our relationship with God?

Why do the innocent suffer?

Is God faithful despite that He sends suffering?

Can one act righteous enough to satisfy God?

Is it possible to satisfy God? Can one be blameless in the sight of God?

Is God unjust in punishing the righteous and ignoring the wicked?

Does death give rest from the judgment of God?

Will a redeemer defend the judged against God?

Can one justify one's self before God?

Is self-righteousness rebellion against God?

Does justifying one's self condemn God's justice?

Can a man answer to God?

And on and on...

Of course, some of these are answered and some are not, and some are answered incorrectly. But the answers are not our concern. It is what is not included that is of interest. In no way does the author of Job, Job himself, his four friends, Satan, or even God, ever address whether God knows the future of Job's dilemma. It is never discussed and never assumed. Indeed the presumption throughout is that God relates to mankind (and Satan for that matter) wholly within the bounds of time. When God sarcastically interrogates Job as to his Godly abilities in chapters 38 to 41 it does not seem to have crossed God's mind to ask Job if he thought that God could see the future, even though it surely would have hammered His point home to Job better than any of the examples God actually used. No, never, not once, in forty two chapters of discussing God's relationship with creation and mankind (and as a side issue, with Satan), is the matter of God knowing the future assumed, discussed, narrated on, or even hinted at. Augustine certainly did not get his supposed enlightenment from the book of Job.

If Job teaches us anything at all, it is that God's relationship with creation and mankind is at least partly contingent on how events unfold, and not on some fixed future that God supposedly knows exhaustively. To dismiss these discrepancies as some would as an anthropotheism (attributing humanizing aspects to God) begs the question of the authenticity of the characters in Job, and the author of Job. And it also begs the question as to what are the human characteristics supposedly being anthropotheized. Were they all ignorant of the supposed eternal-now-god or were they just playing the part of dupes for our supposed benefit? Is it characteristically human to be idiots or play-actors? Is this the contention of the adherents of Augustine's supposed eternal-now-god? And to what benefit? What do we learn from a book where none of the characters are honestly portrayed? Instead we are supposed to suspend our intelligence and ignore that the characters are supposedly portrayed as imbecilic dupes or deceitful play-actors. Again - of what possible benefit? This just casts doubt on the authenticity of the book of Job and its author.

===

As this applies to "For God so loved the world", Augustine called God the eternal-now-god, which if it were true, begs the question again, why did not Christ say, "For God so loves the world” - present tense, in accordance with the idea of an eternal-now-god? You are making my argument for me, Steelfish - thank you.

It was the Gnostics who through their "secret knowledge" claimed that their god was supreme to the Christian and Jewish God because theirs was supposedly outside of time and could see all of time at once. They never claimed that they got this insight from the Bible. And for good reason - the Bible never claims or even acknowledges in any way that God can see the all of future as absolute. This is and has always been Gnostic nonsense.

>>>But this is what happens when Bible Christians don’t have an Augustine or Aquinas or Newman, or the early Church fathers. They rush to third-rate bloggers for a quick cut and paste argument.<<<

The only cut and paste I have done in this thread has been from my own research and writings.

It is you, Steelfish who is the cut and paste king, appealing to authority without rhyme or reason. It is especially humorous to me when you try to impress me with Protestant converts to Roman Catholicism. I find neither to be of much value in understanding the Bible, especially since they agree on many egregious errors - like the canonicity of James.

I have always read "For God so loved the world" as to mean that if/when man sinned the decision was made (by all of the Godhead) that the Son would be a blood sacrifice for our sins. The decision was made before the world was formed which reinforces the notion God loved us before we were even conceived. This thinking is confusing to us because we grew up in a world where time is a unidirectional one and tomorrow is always a surprise.

"For God so loved the world" is not confusing at all when you realize that God is within time just like the rest of us, and when Christ said "For God so loved the world" He was referring to the first creation age when everyone was first created as innocent and sinless. Over and over the Bible describes mankind as created sinless, becoming fallen, and recreated as sinful. Salvation is a return to what we were originally created as - right with God. Virtually every word that describes salvation in the Bible means to return to what we were previously. See for yourself with these examples:

1Pe.1.18b you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers

The Greek word translated "redeemed" is defined in the Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament:

"literally, as an action a buying back of a slave or captive through payment of a ransom" [my emphasis]

And in the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Christian Literature, Third Edition:

"‘buying back’ a slave or captive" [my emphasis]

Note that both definitions refer to "buying back", which can only mean that originally the slave was owned by the one doing the "buying back".

Under "redemption" Easton 's Bible Dictionary states: "The purchase back of something that had been lost" [my emphasis]

The conclusion must be made that that which was "lost" was not originally in a lost condition.

The Holman Bible Dictionary says of Redemption: "Religious redemption language grows out of the custom of buying back something which formerly belonged to the purchaser but for some reason had passed into the ownership of another." [my emphasis]

If God redeems us, then by definition we at some time earlier "formerly belonged to the purchaser".

The King James Dictionary agrees that redemption is to "purchase back": "Repurchase of captured goods or prisoners"

"Redemption presupposes the original elevation of man to a supernatural state and his downfall from it through sin" - The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 12 [my emphasis]

Clearly to be "redeemed" means much more than simply paying a ransom, but to "purchase back" something that one previously owned.

---

Ro.5.10 For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!

Another Greek word, translated "reconciled" is defined in the Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament:

"as restoring relationship between individuals or between God and man" [my emphasis]

And the following verse contains the word "reconciliation" and is defined in the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Third Edition as:

"reestablishment of an interrupted or broken relationship". [my emphasis]

And in the Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament:

"as the reestablishing of personal relations" [my emphasis]

Ro.5.11 Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.

In the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains the above two Greek words translated as "reconciled" and "reconciliation" are defined as:

"to reestablish proper friendly interpersonal relations after these have been disrupted or broken (the componential features of this series of meanings involve (1) disruption of friendly relations because of (2) presumed or real provocation, (3) overt behavior designed to remove hostility, and (4) restoration of original friendly relations)—‘to reconcile, to make things right with one another, reconciliation.’" [my emphasis]

Also included in the above are the following two passages. God will "reconcile...all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven". Note that the word "reconcile" has the element of returning to a former state (The KJV NT Greek Lexicon):

2Co.5.18-21 All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: 19 that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 20 We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God. 21 God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Again "reconciling the world to himself" has the meaning of restoring something that had originally been, and then was lost. The KJV NT Greek Lexicon defines the Greek translated in the following verse "reconcile to himself all things" and "he has reconciled" as "to reconcile completely" "to reconcile back again" and "bring back to a former state of harmony" [my emphasis]:

Co.1.19-23 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

21 Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. 22 But now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation-- 23 if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant.

Other more generic definitions and comments about "reconciliation":

"In Scripture, is the restoration of harmony between two persons at variance, by the removal of existing obstacles" - American Tract Society Bible Dictionary [my emphasis]

"Mankind through indifference, active enmity, and passive hatred had rebelled against God and stood in need of being reconciled to Him. God's creatures defied the divine purpose for life and destroyed the fellowship for which they were intended." - Holman Bible Dictionary [my emphasis]

"To conciliate anew; to call back into union and friendship the affections which have been alienated; to restore to friendship or favor after estrangement; as, to reconcile men or parties that have been at variance." "The act of reconciling parties at variance; renewal of friendship after disagreement or enmity." - King James Dictionary [my emphasis]

It is now obvious that the concept of reconciliation in the Bible is one of restoring or reestablishing a relationship that was at first satisfactory, then was broken, and finally is recreated to its original form.

---

Ti.3.5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit

regeneration - "to experience a complete change in one's way of life to what it should be, with the implication of return to a former state or relation" Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains [my emphasis]

"The Greek word so rendered (palingenesia) is used by classical writers with reference to the changes produced by the return of spring." - Easton 's Bible Dictionary [my emphasis]

"The radical spiritual change in which God brings an individual from a condition of spiritual defeat and death to a renewed condition of holiness and life." - Holman Bible Dictionary [my emphasis]

"The word often used to denote the restoration of a thing to its pristine state" - The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon [my emphasis]

renew - "To renovate; to restore to a former state" - King James Dictionary [my emphasis]

"of a person's spiritual rebirth" "the renewal of your spirit" - A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature

Please note the idea of your spirit being renewed to something it was before.

---

Ac.3.21 whom heaven must receive until the period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time.

restoration - "as an action restoring, restoration of a thing to its former good state" Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament [my emphasis]

"is used of states restored by benefactors to normal conditions and stability" A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature [my emphasis]

"to change to a previous good state" Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains [my emphasis]

"restoration of the perfect state before the fall" - The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon [my emphasis]

"Divine Restitution The New Testament word is found only once (Acts 3:21 ) and can be translated “restoration.” It describes the future work of God that will reestablish all “things” to their pristine order and purpose. The implication here is not the restoration of persons, but of the created order, that is, the universal renewal of the earth." - Holman Bible Dictionary [my emphasis]

"The act of recovering a former state or posture." "The act of replacing in a former state." - King James Dictionary [my emphasis]

---

In the New Testament two Greek words and their derivatives, sozo and soteria, are primarily translated to convey the sense of "to save" and "salvation" in the terms of righteousness. But it turns out that there may indeed be a translational loss that hides a full understanding of what it means to be saved.

From the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains:

"2 The meanings of sozo and soteria in this subdomain differ from the meaning of exaireomai (21.17) in implying not only a rescue from danger but a restoration to a former state of safety and well being. It is this aspect of the terms sozo and soteria which provides such an excellent basis for their use in denoting ‘religious salvation’ (see footnote 4)." [my emphasis]

"F Save in a Religious Sense4"

"4 Meanings of terms in this subdomain are essentially figurative extensions of meaning of the alternative stems soz- and sot-, meaning either ‘to rescue from physical danger’ (see 21.18) or ‘to heal, to make whole’ (see 23.136). In most instances translators have preferred to employ a figurative equivalent based on the concept of ‘to rescue’ or ‘to deliver.’ Increasingly, however, translators are employing figurative meanings based on the concept of ‘healing’ or ‘making whole’ and thus have used such expressions as ‘to give new life to’ or ‘to cause to have a new heart.’ These latter equivalences attempt to combine both the physical and the moral implications. Some translators, however, have employed highly generic equivalents meaning essentially ‘to restore’ or ‘to re-create.’" [my emphasis]

"The Bible conceives salvation as the redemptive renewal of man on the basis of a restored relationship with God in Christ" - Regeneration - J.I. Packer [my emphasis]

"In Christian systematic theology it is used to refer to the study of the biblical doctrine of salvation. It often includes such topics as the nature and extent of the atonement as well as the entire process of salvation, conceived as an eternal, divine plan designed to rescue lost and erring sinners and bring them back into eternal fellowship with God." - Soteriology: Salvation - Greg Herrick Th.M., Ph.D. [my emphasis]

===

Once more: When salvation is referred to in the Bible, it is not just about being right with God, but about again being right with God.

BOOM!

Don’t think I’ve ever seen a Biblical Atomic Wedgie before.

For God so loved the world, that He gave his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting.

The reason.... The Action.... The result...

When did God love all of humanity, as an event, in the past? It could only have happened if all of humanity existed in the past at some point. We did - at the beginning of creation God created everyone, and it is then that He loved everyone as an event when we were right with God the first time. After that mankind fell. The promise of salvation today is to again be right with God. That is what Jn.3.16 promises in a nutshell. He offers salvation today, because He wants to return to how it was when He loved all of humanity, as an event, at the beginning of creation when everyone was right with Him the first time. That is why virtually all words describing salvation do it as a return to something that existed before.

===

1Pe.2.25 For you were like sheep going astray, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.

If you were "like sheep going astray" then you must not have been "astray" to begin with. If you have "returned to the Shepherd" then you had to have been with Him before you went "astray".

---

Lk.15.4-7 "Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Does he not leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it? 5 And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders 6 and goes home. Then he calls his friends and neighbors together and says, 'Rejoice with me; I have found my lost sheep.' 7 I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.

Once you were one of one hundred sheep. But then you became a "lost sheep". And of course then you had to be "found".

---

Lk.15.8-10 "Or suppose a woman has ten silver coins and loses one. Does she not light a lamp, sweep the house and search carefully until she finds it? 9 And when she finds it, she calls her friends and neighbors together and says, 'Rejoice with me; I have found my lost coin.' 10 In the same way, I tell you, there is rejoicing in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents."

Again, we were one of ten coins, but became a "lost coin" as in "to lose something that one already has". It then became necessary that we be "found".

---

Lk.14.34 "Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again?"

Man was "salty" before. And "salt is good". Unless it "loses its saltiness".

---

Additionally some passages directly illustrate a restoration of that which was lost:

Lk.19.10 "For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost."

The Greek word "lost" means: "to lose something that one already has" - A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Third Edition. And we have already seen that to "save" means to reestablish a "lost" relationship.

Ac.3.21 He must remain in heaven until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets.

To "restore" means to return to a point that existed before.

1Pe.5.10 And the God of all grace, who called you to his eternal glory in Christ, after you have suffered a little while, will himself restore you and make you strong, firm and steadfast.

If God will "restore you and make you strong, firm and steadfast" then you must have been "strong, firm and steadfast" before. Many translations do not adhere to the definition of "restore", but this is the correct understanding as illustrated by 1Pe.2.25 above.

He.13.20-21 May the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep, 21 equip [restore] you with everything good for doing his will, and may he work in us what is pleasing to him, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

The Greek word for "equip" should more accurately be translated "restore" as in what a "shepherd of the sheep" does with a wandering sheep.

===

"For God so loved the world" at the beginning before mankind's fall that He wants to return to it.

When did God love all of humanity, as an event, in the past?

Genesis 2:26-31

26 And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth.
27 And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
28 And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth.
29 And God said: Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed upon the earth, and all trees that have in themselves seed of their own kind, to be your meat:
30 And to all beasts of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to all that move upon the earth, and wherein there is life, that they may have to feed upon. And it was so done.
31 And God saw all the things that he had made, and they were very good. And the evening and morning were the sixth day.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oo66HqtVAH0

I am not sure how to respond. Is this a joke? An insult? A whatever? Or are you actually supporting my side of the argument by illustrating that the other side only has four little words against the dozens of pieces of supporting evidence that I have posted?

You should know that this passage, "God saw all that he had made, and it was very good" was actually an indictment of an already fallen creation. It was "very good" only in the sense that His plan for redemption of the creation was off to a good start. But God's standard is not "very good". It is perfection. That's how creation was at the beginning, and that's how it will be after the judgment age is completed.

Dt.32.4 He is the Rock, his works are perfect

Ps.18.30 As for God, his way is perfect

How do we know that creation is already fallen? The serpent was not "under one head" as creation is described in:

Ep.1.9-10 And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, 10 to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment--to bring all things in heaven and on earth together [again] under one head, even Christ.

In the beginning "all things in heaven and on earth" were under "one head", but in the garden the serpent is not.

Ge.2.16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden"

Eating something like fruit causes it to die. There is already death in creation.

Ge.3.2-3 The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.' "

This is the first recorded act of deception in the new creation age - a lie. God did not say "you must not touch it". It is interesting that Adam's first recorded words were an exclamation of intimate association between Eve and himself, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh". And what were Eve's first recorded words? A deception, she misquotes God's first recorded words spoken to Adam, which she did not hear. Whether Adam lied to her or she added to Adam's words is not indicated in the text, but either way it indicates that both were already in a fallen state. The second deception is recorded in verse four:

Ge.3.4 "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman.

This was a lie - God did say they would "surely die" (Ge.2.17) and it is entirely likely the serpent was aware of this. Actually it was later cursed for deceiving Eve, the curse being an indication of judgment on the serpent's deception (Ge.3.14).

These examples of a fallen creation are all prior to Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit. So the state of creation may have been "very good", but it was hardly "perfect" - God's standard.

So we have deprogrammerliberalism telling us “I probably have more hours of actual hands-on biblical research than those whom you quote. Your constant appeals to authority do not impress me. Your authorities do not impress me.”

He then goes onto summon us to accept “his” interpretation of scriptural verses, even impressing into services dictionaries to explain “his” understanding of literal text. This is precisely the kind of shallow rot that the heresy of Protestantism has unleashed. Everyone and their grandmother take it upon themselves to give their “own” version of God’s word from David Koresh to Billy Graham.

Deprogrammerliberalism is so wrapped up in “his” version of God’s word that he ridicules what he calls “constant appeals to authority.” But this is precisely why Christ established one Church to instruct ONE truth and gave it His own binding power and guaranteed that even the gates of hell shall not prevail against the teachings of His ONE Church.

Like the others around him, he had no plans to teach “his” version against Protestant converts to Catholicism like the book written by Dave Armstrong whose link is supplied below.

http://www.amazon.com/Biblical-Defense-Catholicism-Dave-Armstrong/dp/1928832954
http://shop.sophiainstitute.com/Assets/ProductImages/prodpdf/954.pdf

As I have said before these discussions begin and end with Petrine authority.

As a bonus, I thought I’d offer you all a short synopsis of another convert to Catholicism- James Akin whose structural interpretation of a particular passage of text is illuminating. The first link is to the full book, the second link is a short introductory. Kayaker may like to take note that James Akin is no cultist.

As is usual when Bible Christian move out of their shallow environs and move into deeper waters they either sink or they stay afloat and convert to Catholicism. One such Protestant (among many) who was on journey in serious study to become a minister realized the utter rubbish of Bible Christianity even as they interpreted the strict text that becomes the stating point for Catholicism’s Petrine authority.

James Akin converted to Catholicism and provides this insightful structural interpretation of Petrine authority. Of course there are mountains of evidence to support this from Augustine to Aquinas to Newman to Benedict (that TIME called the “theological Einstein of our times.”) but the profundity of their scholarship and writings would probably fly over the heads of Bible Christians.

A Structural Interpretation

In Matthew 16:17-19 Jesus makes three statements to Peter:

1. “Blessed are you Simon Bar-Jonah,”
2. “You are Peter,” and on this rock I will build my Church
3. “I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.”

The first statement is clearly a blessing, something which builds Peter up and magnifies him. Christ declares him blessed because he received a special revelation from God.

The reason Peter was “blessed” was because “flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.”

So we have deprogrammerliberalism telling us “I probably have more hours of actual hands-on biblical research than those whom you quote. Your constant appeals to authority do not impress me. Your authorities do not impress me.”

He then goes onto summon us to accept “his” interpretation of scriptural verses, even impressing into services dictionaries to explain “his” understanding of literal text. This is precisely the kind of shallow rot that the heresy of Protestantism has unleashed. Everyone and their grandmother take it upon themselves to give their “own” version of God’s word from David Koresh to Billy Graham.

Deprogrammerliberalism is so wrapped up in “his” version of God’s word that he ridicules what he calls “constant appeals to authority.” But this is precisely why Christ established one Church to instruct ONE truth and gave it His own binding power and guaranteed that even the gates of hell shall not prevail against the teachings of His ONE Church.

Like the others around him, he had no plans to teach “his” version against Protestant converts to Catholicism like the book written by Dave Armstrong whose link is supplied below.

http://www.amazon.com/Biblical-Defense-Catholicism-Dave-Armstrong/dp/1928832954
http://shop.sophiainstitute.com/Assets/ProductImages/prodpdf/954.pdf

As I have said before these discussions begin and end with Petrine authority.

James Akin converted to Catholicism and provides this insightful structural interpretation of Petrine authority. Of course there are mountains of evidence to support this from Augustine to Aquinas to Newman to Benedict (that TIME called the “theological Einstein of our times.”) but the profundity of their scholarship and writings would probably fly over the heads of Bible Christians.

A Structural Interpretation

In Matthew 16:17-19 Jesus makes three statements to Peter:

1. “Blessed are you Simon Bar-Jonah,”
2. “You are Peter,” and on this rock I will build my Church
3. “I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.”

The first statement is clearly a blessing, something which builds Peter up and magnifies him. Christ declares him blessed because he received a special revelation from God.

The reason Peter was “blessed” was because “flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.”

Such an incongruous sequence of statements would have been not merely odd, but inexplicable. Many shallow-minded Bible Christian commentators recognize this and they do their best to deny the obvious sense of this passage, however implausible their explanations may be.

The Divine Logic Is Naturally Crystalline Clear

The reason Peter was “blessed” was because “flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven”

The meaning of the name change, “You are Rock,” is explained by the promise, “On this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”

The purpose of the keys is explained by Jesus’ commission, “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” A careful reading of these three statements, paying attention to their immediate context and interrelatedness, clearly shows that Peter was the rock about which Jesus spoke.

This is exclusively a textual conclusion. And yet it takes a formerly serious student of Bible Christianity to expose Protestantism’s hollow interpretation of sola scriptura. Add to this the overwhelming background of tradition and acceptance and passages from the Acts of the Apostles Petrine authority is undeniable except by those so blind that they refuse to see.

Bible Christians must learn to not quaff from the putrid sources of half-educated bloggers, shallow preachers like the Joel Osteens and Billy Grahams, and “Bishop” TD Jakes’ and others.

They need instead to venture into deeper theological inquiry and follow the example of Dr. David Anders, Jimmy Akins, or that pre-eminent Lutheran scholar of his time, the late Rev. Richard Neuhaus and engage in some serious study, or even better immerse themselves in the theological writings of that Brilliant English theologian, Cardinal Henry Newman.

Who knows, Bible-Christians on this thread who really read up like those renowned former Protestant scholars may end up being Catholics by next Easter. Knowledge of the truth makes for a critical life changer.

This would mean celebrating the risen Christ in the Eucharist instead of that meaningless trip to the beach with picnic basket and dog in tow to take part in vapid “Sunrise Services” holding hands and doing a kumbaya. This is the stuff of low-IQ neighborhood Foursquare Church pastors of the likes of Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Rev. Al Sharpton!

Intellectual prowess is meaningless in God's economy.

Intellectual ability is not the right means by which spiritual truths are discerned or understood. They MUST be revealed to us by the Holy Spirit.

So your belittling others for not having the intellectual abilities to understand spiritual truths is like belittling a blind man for not seeing and understanding color.

He doesn't understand it because he doesn't have the right means available to him to understand it, nor does the natural man understand the things of the Spirit because he does not have the spiritual life in him to understand it.

The intellect doesn't cut it.

So all your patting yourself on the back for your intellectual acumen and belittling others that you seem to perceive as not as good as you, only serves to feed your pride.

SPIRITUAL TRUTHS ARE SPIRITUALLY DISCERNED

1 Corinthians 1:18-31 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written,“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”

Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”

1 Corinthians 2:1-16 And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.

Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away. But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. But, as it is written,

“What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him”—

these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.

The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. “For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.

>>>Like the others around him, he had no plans to teach “his” version against Protestant converts to Catholicism like the book written by Dave Armstrong whose link is supplied below.<<<

I have nine books so far in the MetaChristianity series. They that teach the results of my research into Bible mysteries. The first one is MetaChristianity I - How To Unlock Bible Mysteries (it is free). It teaches how the Bible works and a pragmatic method so that anyone can discover the answers to Bible mysteries for them self. The other eight books are linked at the bottom of the page.

Everyone and their grandmother take it upon themselves to give their “own” version of God’s word from David Koresh to Billy Graham.

No one....and I mean no one recognizes David Koresh as anything but a false prophet. For you to continue to advance the same posting over and over suggests a lack of critical thinking.

However, catholicism refuses to condemn their own when they advance false doctrine.

Example. Pope Urban II promised salvation for those who fought and died in the Crusades....a catholic version of jihad that is found no where in Scripture.

Then we have the list of all the naughty things the popes have done and yet no catholic accuses them of "their own interpretation of Scripture."

Then there is Msgr Pope who publishes his understanding of the Word which is then reposted by Salvation in the FR Religion forum.

And of course, let's not forget the catholic advancement of the false teachers and teachings of Fatima and Guadaloupe.

And now we have catholics advancing a fifth Marian dogma of which there is growing support for.

Is the catholic prepared to say that every lesson taught in catholic services around the word is the same.....word for word....no deviation??

Unless the catholic can, and we have enough proof on this board they can't, the catholic needs to get off their high horse and ditch the arrogant tone that is so unbecoming amongst some.