Posted on 10/02/2003 6:28:22 PM PDT by anncoulteriscool
The basis of my hope is that Jesus sacrificed for me.
The fact is that you have to accept Jesus into your heart. He will not force himself into your heart, you have to open the door.
Consider this: Do you respect someone who is a "yes-man"? What message are we sending to the broader pagan culture if we tell them we believe people can get saved whenever they want? They can go and tear down culture, commit fornication, kill babies, and then come "make their decision" later in life.
Also, when we use music patterned after the world, we send the message that God doesn't care how we worship him, that the most important thing is getting large numbers of people. The pagans see this. Why should they fear such a God, Who lets anything go, and restrain their lives accordingly?
I must give an account before God one day, and so must you. My sin may be that I have shown too little charity, and this troubles me. Frankly, there's no reason why God should let any one of us into Heaven, and we certainly take this for granted, this, our own utter rotteness and moral bankruptcy and God's condescending, umerited grace. But Truth and Love must unite; one cannot destroy the other.
Perfection is impossible. Therein lies the reason why God, if He were to save any, had to gave His perfect and only Son as the final sacrifice. All those animal sacrifices in the OT point to JESUS. In fact, they never were salvific in nature but rather typical, pointing to that one, final, lasting Sacrifice at Calvary. "For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness." (Rom. 4:2,3). The OT Jews were saved just as Christians are, by justifying faith in Jesus Christ, whom they looked to in the future
(hmm, sounds like Jesus' words in Matt 5:17-19)...
Can you explain why we are told to obey the commandments in the "New Testament"?
"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Matt. 5:18).
Jump down to verses 21 and especially 22, "But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his borther without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment." This is harsher than "Thou shalt not kill" and shows, along with the related verses on adultery (vv. 27, 28), each of us our utter inability to keep the Law. The Jews had made the Law an external affair, but Jesus is addressing the heart. What He is telling us is that even a sinful thought is sufficient to condemn (v 28). This is why justifying faith in Him, Who kept the Law perfectly in thought, word, and deed, is the only hope of salvation; none of us can keep the law perfectly and have already broken it ten thousand times over.
The place for the Law today: The law is a severe schoolmaster that drives the believer continually to the cross, reminding him that it's all Jesus, and nothing he did. It also serves as a guideline for how he is to live his gratitude to God for saving him. The latter, however, is part of sanctification and can in no wise save.
And if so, which ones? The Ten Commandments. "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hand all the law and the prophets." The two tables of the law: The first four commandments teach us how to love the Lord our God, and the last six how to love our neighbour.
No, it's not picking and choosing. Anything in the OT that is not explicitly sanctioned in the NT is finished (loftyheights, a Lutheran, may disagree on this). You do not see NT believers sacrificing animals and avoiding certain foods. Paul was very harsh in Galatians with his treatment of the Judaizers. One example of the Levitical Law being fulfulled is in Galatians 2:11-16, on Paul confronting Peter on the latter's refusal to eat with the Gentiles in the presence of newly arrived Jews. v. 16: "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified."
There are other Scriptural references (e.g. where Paul says, all things are lawful but not all are profitable, in Romans). I cannot think of one specific scripture that says, "The ten commandments are all that is binding after the coming of Jesus"; rather it's evident, and God is one, Who does not change (Scriptura Scripturae, Scripture interprets Scripture). Interestingly, the word "Trinity" does not appear in the Bible either. And, as we already saw, the Scripture for the Sunday Sabbath is poorly translated. There are other examples that I cannot think of right now.
This, with respect, is nothing more than a variation of Gnosticism.
Before i begin, please allow me to explain that i have placed what you were commenting upon in green, and your own comments in brown in order to avoid confusion.
Take a deep breath and repeat after me..."Similar does not mean same, similar does not mean same". A little backgrownd: The word we translate as church is ejkklhsiva, [ekklesia], meanning literally "the called out ones". On this basis alone, there are similarities to Gnosticism. Many of the Gnostics actually were and are Christians, albeit with some controversial doctrines.
"I, the church, need not make myself accesable to you. You want in, do the hard work of learning my ways and then and only then may you earn atmitence."
BALDERDASH.
Respectfully, that is almost exactly the nature of the matter. The church is in fact the assembly of those who have been called out in order to:
It is in fact God Who adds to the Church, and not the individual by his/her "choice".
The church should be free to the most humble of entries. Did Christ educate the woman at the well in doctrine BEFORE he revealed himself to her? To say that the Church must set up the (effective) barrier of "liturgical training or doctrinal knowledge" between the unchurched and the congregation is 180 degrees oppisite of the mission of the church. When, in Acts 2, the crowd asks Peter "Men and brethern, what must we do to be saved?" Peter did NOT answer "Go and acquire liturgical training or doctrinal knowledge and get back to me."
First off, Liturgical training was not needed by virtue of the fact that Jesus and His disciples were all Jews, and already knew the Liturgy of both the synagogue and the Temple. Second, Peter's instructions were in fact doctrine:
38) The Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye will recieve the gift of the Holy Ghost.
39) For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
We can see from that passage that there was and is a requirement for church membership, a body of knowlege that must be accepted if you prefer, SIMILAR TO GNOSTICISM.
Second, your idea that we need to meet the people where they are at, etc. This is nothing more than watering down the Christian faith. It is hard to argue authoritatively with this statement: "The only thing that will keep the people coming is what brought them there in the first place." Jesus preached down to people all the time. We call them parables!
With respect to Loftyheight's comment here, i beleive that he or she has actually understated the premise. The Scriptures are much more explicit:
9) What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
10) As is written, THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NO, NOT ONE:
11) THERE IS NONE THAT UNDERSTANDETH, THERE IS NONE THAT SEEKETH AFTER GOD.
Secondarily, Jesus had an explicit reason for preaching and teaching in parables that is not popular today, and hence not often discussed:
10) And the disciples came, and saikd unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
11) He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
12) For whosoever hath, to him shapp be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
13) Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
14) And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of E-sa'-ias, which saith, BY HEARING YE SHALL HEAR, AND SHALL NOT UNDERSTAND; AND SEEING YE SHALL SEE, AND SHALL NOT PERCEIVE:
15) FOR THIS PEOPLE'S HEART IS WAXED GROSS, AND THIER EARS ARE DULL OF HEARING, AND THEIR EYES THEY HAVE CLOSED; LEST AT ANY TIME THEY SHOULD SEE WITH THEIR EYES, AND HEAR WITH THEIR EARS, AND SHOULD UNDERSTAND WITH THEIR HEART, AND SHOULD BE CONVERTED, AND I SHOULD HEAL THEM.
You are mistaken both on the premise that we should not "put it on the lowest shelf" (as you just admited our Lord himself did) but also in the assumption that it should remain there. A. The Bible is replete with examples of conversion based on what you mistakenly call "watered down" gospel. It is not watered down at all IF it preaches Jesus Christ and him crucified as the only way to God. the rest of the "doctrinal knowledge" is NOT what saves us. Prety much every prominent Christian you've ever heard of at some point in his or her life acquiesed to the "watered down" truth that Jesus was there only escape from hell and only door to God. There is, in fact, no other way to believe. No one was ever saved by litergy. B. The truth of the above further implies that quite a few people DO move beyond that initial simplicity to the deep truths of God. Paul himself said that we progress from the "milk" to the "meat" of the word. Many come to know Jesus in unconventional services and go on to study and even teach the deep theological principles of the word. You seem to want them to know these deep things before there conversion. Pardon me for saying so but that's just silly.
As we have seen above, the Gospel was not simplified it was in fact INCOMPREHENSIBLE to all except who the Lord intended to hear. To suggest that this appeals to the "lowest common denominator" is to rip Jesus teaching and scripture out of context.
Does this mean that the gospel should be obscured? Certainly not! The gospel should be presented plainly and fully, that is the responsibility of the believer. This requires a knowlege of what the Gospel entails, and precludes the watered down teaching that passes for "equipping the saints" in churches these days.
As I stated in my previous post, new methods of evangilism come along from time to time and have throught the history of the church to meet the people at the point of their spiritual need. IF the church had never moved past literguical methodology it would not be nearly the size it is today. Millions have responded to protastant alter calls which would by no means have responded to the methods of litergical churches.
Popularity of response is not a test of truth. Were that the case we should all be LDS (Mormons), or Islamics, as these two religions are reputedly the fastest growing in the world. The Altar call and anxious bench are the innovations of Charles Finney, who was a Pelagian Heretic, and did not exist in the American Church before that time. If you wish to see the fruits of Finney's work, i strongly recommend that you tour the "burned over district" of Western New York State.
Absolutly SOME people will respond to a traditional liturgical system, but God has created a wide diversity of people and not all respond to the same stimulus in the same way. There may be a carismatic or a black church member who would consider my baptist church dry and unspiritual - why should I insist that he conform to my form of worship? Methinks you exibit an inordinate amount of vanity in your chosen form. A little humility is recomended. VERY little of your vaunted litergical service derives it's athority from New Testament precedent.
Actually, a bit of both church and Jewish history is in order. It is not popularly taught that the early Christian Worship service was based on a highly stylised and liturgical JEWISH worship service. These forms did not evolve out of thin air! As per New Testament Precident, the early Christians were either Jews, or Gentiles exposed to and familiar with Jewish ritual. The Apostles were Jews, and in the case of Paul, highly educated Jews, Paul holding what would have been the equivalent of today's "Doctorate of Divinity".
Just some matters for your consideration.
To say you are saved because you did anything is to rob God of His glory: "But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags" (Is. 64:6). The Belgic Confession expresses this most eloquently:
"And verily, if we should appear before God relying on ourselves or on any other creature, though ever so little, we should, alas! be consumed" (Isa. 33:14; Deut. 27:26; James 2:10).
Trust in Christ alone. And render Him due praise for what you could never have done of yourself.
It's my belief that G*d has given us freewill and we must make a conscious decision to accept Jesus into our heart.
"Repent and be baptized."
That is God's command to you and to me. If you are elect, you will respond in kind. But your response in no wise proceeds it, but is a response to God's call, to which only the elect will respond. Elect from every tribe and tongue. In short, the whole world.
Free will is a popular belief in our day and age and comports nicely with American individualism. But our final authority as Christians must be the Word. Be thankful, that God has chosen you.
Are you aware of the fact that the Waldensians rejected infant baptism in the Pope's back yard for several centuries at least (and there are some, including me, who think they were a survival of the primitive church), and didn't compromise until after the Reformation, when they decided to join with the Reformed churches under Calvin?
Should be: ...Waldensians rejected infant baptism in the Pope's back yard for several at least before the Reformation...
What do you suggest, hmmm?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.