The Neverending Story (The New Christian Chronicles)

Southern Baptists ending talks with Catholic Church ^ | 3/24/01 | AP

[malakhi]

The Neverending Story
An ongoing debate on Scripture, Tradition, History and Interpretation.

Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams

Thread 162
TNS Archives

[vmatt]

Eph 5:5-7. For you can be quite sure that nobody who actually indulges in fornication or impurity or promiscuity--which is worshipping a false God--can inherit anything of the kingdom of God. Do not let anyone deceive you with empty arguments: it is for this loose living that God's anger comes down on those who rebel against him. Make sure that you are not included with them.

Heb 10:26-29. If, after we have been given knowledge of the truth, we should deliberately commit any sins, there is no longer any sacrifice for them. There will be only the dreadful prospect of judgement and of the raging fire that will burn rebels. Anyone who disregards the Law of Moses is ruthlessly put to death on the word of two witnesses or three, and you may be sure that anyone who tramples on the Son of God and who treats the blood of the covenant which sanctified him as if it were not holy, and who insults the spirit of grace, will be condemned to a far severer punishment.

This is the worst butchering of the word of God I have ever witnessed in any translation.

[RobbyS]

think a major reason that Rome got an overly exalted opinion of itself is that it was the only apostolic see in the West (soon styling itself "the Apostolic See"). In the East there are lots of apostolic sees: Antioch, Alexanrdia (both with Petrine foundations), Jerusalem, Ephesus, Corinth, Crete,... You seem to forget that when the Church was established in Rome, Rome was the metropolis of the Empire. Even after Constantine moved the political capital to Byzantium, the cultural prestige of the "First" Rome continued to outstrip the new capital until Rome was sacked in 410. Thereafter it became more and more the city of the pope. The see of Constantinople continued to suffer a lack of prestige and to incite the jealously of the more ancient sees, especially Alexandria and Antioch. Rome's religious prestige survived the Germans invasions, but after the Muslim conquests, all the eastern patriarchies, except Constinople, began to fade in importance. The split between Rome and "New Rome" was in part cultural and in part political. But the "overly exalted opinion" can be attributed to the fact that It's foundation was apostolic amd its lone surviving competitor had a political foundation.

[NATE4"ONE NATION"]

Benny Hinn, whom I despise, is very good at interpreting the meaning of many of these Old Covenant stones and colors. I believe he is Jewish.
I agree that the city is an anti-type to the priesthood garment.

Since the New Jerusalem is the church, could it be said that:
"You are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people who should show forth the praises of Him who has called you out of darkness?"

[NATE4"ONE NATION"]

I have yet to meet a divorced Preterist.

[vmatt]

Since the New Jerusalem is the church, could it be said that: "You are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people who should show forth the praises of Him who has called you out of darkness?"

I don't spend much time with guys like Mr. Hinn. What makes you think the new Jerusalem is a church? This is key to your understanding of where we are now. Great to hear about Adam and your wife. I hope things continue to improve.

Hebrews 11:10 For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.

Hebrews 11:16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.

Hebrews 12:22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,

Revelation 3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

Revelation 21:9 And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife.

10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,

[ksen]

Thank you. I can be brief at this point, with just a couple of follow up questions:

Fire away, Gridley.

First, is it then, as referenced earlier, the same knowing - factual historical knowing - that constitutes "believing on Christ"? Believing used in this same sense as we believe that Napolean crowned himself emperor? A reasoned conclusion based on credible historical evidence?

I think that is part of it, but there's more. This makes me think of an illustration I heard once, it was particularly helpful to my wife. Say you are on a ship in the middle of the ocean, you fall overboard. Someone notices your plight and tosses you a life preserver. The life preserver lands next to you. You can look at the life preserver and intellectually understand that if you were to place your weight on it, it would save your life. You could still be intellectually acknowledging that fact even as your head went under the water for the last time. It is only when you place yourself on the life preserver, in the faith that it will do what you intellectually know it can do, that your life will be saved.

Jesus is the same way. My mother, for example, knows that Christ exists, well existed for her, and she knows that He died on the cross, and she knows that the Bible says that it was for her sins that He died. However, she has never trusted in that for her salvation. It is only when we trust our eternal destiny to Him and what He has done for us that we are saved from the wrath to come.

On what basis did you decide that the Bible was God's testimony; which other scriptures and teachings did you examine using this same criteria? This would seem to me to be a necessary preceeding informed decision in order for those following to have a sound foundation.

There comes a time when you need to stop the endless questioning and wondering and just believe. Throughout my life I had always known there was a God. I believe that we humans are designed with a default setting that acknowledges a Creator, we have to try to believe that there is no God. I was just never sure who God was. As a child, the only time I would go to church was when my Great-Grandmother came to visit. I would walk to church with her and when we visited her she would let me read her Bible.

I was married when I was 23 years old. When our daughter was two years old (I was 25 by then) I decided that we should start going to church. My wife knew of a little Baptist church the next town over that her sister attended. We went to that church. The first Sunday there I walked down the aisle to tell the Pastor that I wasn't sure I was going to Heaven, but that I wanted to know.

The assistant Pastor took me to his office and opened the Bible and showed me verses that I had never heard of before. He showed me Ro 3:23, that told me that everyone has sinned, no exceptions. He showed me Ro 6:23, which said that the wages of sin was death, but that we could have eternal life through the gift of Jesus Christ. He showed me John 3:36, which said that if you did not believe on the Son that God's wrath was abiding on you.

I bowed my head and acknowledged to God that I was indeed a sinner. I told Him that I believed what He said about Jesus Christ and I asked Him to forgive me because of what Jesus had done for ME. That was on November 29, 1992. That was the day that I became a Christian. My home in Heaven has been secure since that day.

I knew the Scriptures were the Word of God, not by extensive research and comparison, but by how the words spoke to my soul.

Intellectualism has its place. It is not "intrinsically evil", to borrow a phrase from a recent discussion on this thread. God expects us to use the brains that He gave us. But if we are not careful, we could intellectualize ourselves, or others, right into Hell. There comes a time when we need to stop trying to verify and corroborate facts and just believe.

Many thanks for your courteous discussion.

No thanks are necessary, this has been my pleasure. I look forward to hearing your response.

-ksen

[RobbyS]

Anglo Catholic generally refers to liturgical practice - smells and bells, chasubles, stauary. Continuing Anglicans are those Anglicans who have separated from the "mainline" Anglican church for doctrinal reasons and set up "new" ecclesiastical structures under orthodox bishops. There are continuing Anglican churches in every country in which the "official" Anglican church has embraced priestesses, for example.

I wasn't aware of the distinction. It reminds me that Newman never bought into the Ritualism that became associated with Pusey or Richard Church. We Catholics have been afflicted with "reformers" whoalso are more interested in "look" than doctrine. IMO, they have also also lacked any appreciation of beauty. They can spend a ton of money and produce a church building that looks like a Methodist Church built on a shoestring.

[RobbyS]

We are sanctified ( seen as perfect in the eyes of God) AT the point of faith in Christ. It is an event, not a process. Are you saying that it has to be a dramatic moment, like Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus? But Acts and Paul don't depict that "event," in the same light. In Acts it seems like a process. In his letters, more like what you say. But If it is true that I Thess. is his first letter, than the views he holds in Romans are what he sees in retrospect. His meeting with Jesus was more a call then a conversion, because at that moment Paul made no decision: he was literally knocked off stride. Just as Peter and the rest were first call and then came to know their mission, the same was true of Paul. It all took time. Why not, we all libe in time.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

We are sanctified ( seen as perfect in the eyes of God) AT the point of faith in Christ. It is an event, not a process. Are you saying that it has to be a dramatic moment, like Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus? But Acts and Paul don't depict that "event," in the same light. In Acts it seems like a process. In his letters, more like what you say. But If it is true that I Thess. is his first letter, than the views he holds in Romans are what he sees in retrospect. His meeting with Jesus was more a call then a conversion, because at that moment Paul made no decision: he was literally knocked off stride. Just as Peter and the rest were first call and then came to know their mission, the same was true of Paul. It all took time. Why not, we all libe in time.Which is it Robby? Did it take time to know his mission or to convert? Sure looks like the conversion happened quick to me

acts 9;6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.

Sounds like he decided to obey and follow instantly. Do you ever actually read the book? Or is all your reading time spent reading papal history and tradition?

[NATE4"ONE NATION"]

What makes you think the new Jerusalem is a church?

You should know me a tad better than that. I believe in no "church" (establishment). So A does not apply before the word church.
I believe in the everlasting city where God dwells, where there is no temple because God is it's temple.

God only dwells with His church (body of believers, two or more are gathered, etc).

Revelation 21:2 And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband

There is but ONE bride of Christ. One prepared for her husband. It was the church, the believers. WE are the bride of Christ. We, the church, is the New Jerusalem where the Lord dwells forever.

[NATE4"ONE NATION"]

Are you saying that it has to be a dramatic moment, like Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus?

It is an event, as calm as a few words, as passionate as a night of tears. It depends on how God strikes the heart of the individual. Sanctification is a spiritual reality which happens at the moment of salvation, we live out the process, the spiritual reality that God already see's, until we go to be with Him.

But Acts and Paul don't depict that "event," in the same light. In Acts it seems like a process. In his letters, more like what you say. But If it is true that I Thess. is his first letter, than the views he holds in Romans are what he sees in retrospect. His meeting with Jesus was more a call then a conversion, because at that moment Paul made no decision: he was literally knocked off stride. Just as Peter and the rest were first call and then came to know their mission, the same was true of Paul. It all took time. Why not, we all libe in time.

I hold that the path to salvation for those, still under the Old Covenant, was different than ours. They had to maintain a life held to certain standards and practicing certain "sacraments" which we no longer are required to do.
We have been freed from the "law" and are under grace. It happened at the consumation of the kingdom which only one other Neverending "regular" even believes in.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

Here ya go, have fun Nate

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/638617/posts

BigMack

[The_Reader_David]

Well, I guess we may be bound to diagree. I see the corruption in the West which eventually lead to the schism of the Roman Partiarchate from the Church, and the well-known abuses which fueled the reformation, as stemming from the Roman papacy attempting to assume Imperial functions. (At first, there was nothing particularly blameworthy in this--once the barbarian kings ceased to actually function as representatives of the Emperor, the Pope of Rome was the only universally acknowledged authority of any sort in the West.)

In the East the relation between the Empire and the Church became what is known among scholars as the "Byzantine Symphony of Powers". One Emperor put it "I have charge of men's bodies, the Church has charge of their souls": the two represented distinct but cooperative sources of authority and power in the society of the Christian Empire. Each had its own proper sphere of operation, and each had a role in restraining or guiding the other: Bishops and the pious faithful often rebuked Emperors who fell into excesses (although they sometimes got themselves exiled, or even martyred if the Emperor was particularly bad--these are often commemorated on our calendar of saints, while clerics who supinely went along with Emperors who strayed from the faith are reviled in our histories). Emperors intervened in the Church from time-to-time, but the interventions which stuck (the councils we now recognize as Ecumenical Councils) were always for the peace of the Church in time of ecclesiatical termoil, and didn't try to enforce an outcome to the Emperor's liking (well, with the possible exception of the Seventh, which the Empress Irene called to undo years of imperial meddling by the iconoclasts, to restore traditional piety).

Inevitably when Emperors meddled in theology rather than intervening for the good of the Church, their work soon undone by the Church (the "Henoticon" of Emperor Zeno, the iconoclastic movement, and the False Union Councils come to mind). Likewise, seldom did interventions by hierarchs in properly political matters, as opposed to moral matters, ever have a lasting or salutory effect on either Church or Empire.

[NATE4"ONE NATION"]

I appreciate your effort in directing me there. I love defending my faith against those who use no scripture behind their ranting and raving but spout the ignorant teachings of the "Failed prophets of a FALSE premise!"

[Invincibly Ignorant]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/638617/posts

LOL. You're keeping Nate busy. He's got half the posts over there. lol.

[Proud2BAmerican]

Yes, you are wrong. Catholics venerate Mary, they do not "worship" her. Worship is reserved for God alone. Glad to have cleared this up for you.

[Proud2BAmerican]

I take it you approve of popes who are unregenerate reprobates who walk in darkness?

No, I don't. Why would you take it that I would? What have I said that would somehow infer that I supported that ridiculous sentiment? Oh, wait, I know -- I'm Catholic, so in your eyes, I must. (I'm guessing you missed my post requesting that you stop calling Catholics "papists". At least, in your dialogue with me, please respect my request.)

My point in bringing up Judas, being hand picked by Christ as a disciple, is to draw out the point that within any group of Christians there are going to be the reprobate -- those people who are unregenerate sinners. Within your VERY church that you attend, I would be willing to guess that there are unregenerate sinners who are slave to some or other sin at the exclusion of a right relationship with God. It is a quality of membership that is not exclusive to the Catholic Church, and so does not impugn her credibility as a whole.

[Proud2BAmerican]

Yes, I do believe the Roman Catholic church as a whole to be a corrupted institution, by and large,

Let me get this straight: as a whole, you believe it is corrupted. But as a whole, you do not believe it's evil (your post: #30896). Is corruption a good thing in your eyes?

[RobbyS]

An event is no more than an important occurance, with the implication that something has been building up to it. Nothing we read before leads us to believe that he was anything but cocksure of his mission. He was stunned by what happens, but his vision is but the first in a chain of events. Does he KNOW that he is "saved?" Acts does not tell us that what he writes fifteen to twenty years later,hoever one interprets it, was revealed to him in that moment.

[Elsie]

Heb 10:26-29. If, after we have been given knowledge of the truth, we should deliberately commit any sins, there is no longer any sacrifice for them. There will be only the dreadful prospect of judgement and of the raging fire that will burn rebels. Anyone who disregards the Law of Moses is ruthlessly put to death on the word of two witnesses or three, and you may be sure that anyone who tramples on the Son of God and who treats the blood of the covenant which sanctified him as if it were not holy, and who insults the spirit of grace, will be condemned to a far severer punishment.

---

NIV Hebrews 10:26-29
26. If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left,
27. but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.
28. Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses.
29. How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?

---

ANY sins? At ALL???

---

Dang! I'm LOST!!!!