Posted on 07/22/2007 7:40:38 PM PDT by xzins
But I admit it to be "true" only because I "know" in my conviction (i.e. I believe) it is true, not because I have objective proof that it is. If I had irresistible proof then I could easily sway all others to believe as I do.
"Easily sway" is up to God. He either grants ears to hear at that time or He does not. Reasonable proof is always available to the believer with which to witness. Even if it is God's decision that a particular time is not the right time, the seed planted will be MUCH stronger if it has the backing of reason versus blind faith.
FK: "Then to you "God-breathed" means "human".
No. God-breathed means that the individual comes to "know" something ineffable, and then tries to describe it. Try something like falling in love...But the nature of that revelation doesn't mean it is from God. It could be an evil spirit appearing as an angel of light. Do not forget that Gnostics and even the LDS claim to be "inspired."
Even by your description, God-breathed includes human error. That's what I meant by "human". IOW, God breathes error. I'm really not sure how to respond. :) The value of the Bible between our two faiths could not possibly be more night and day.
That which is perfect is God, FK. It means literally complete, that which lacks nothing.
Is a perfect square God?
Anything from God is by definition perfect.
Then you acknowledge that the Bible is not "from God". I mean, that would make sense from what you have said and all ......
Then we must presume that God intended for us to fall. The Bible certainly doesn't reveal that. If anything, it suggests that God "regretted" ("repented" in KJV) having made man.
Of course God intended man to fall. Did it happen by accident? The Bible reveals God's intentions in full by what we are given. He planted the tree, He opened the gate, and then He disappeared. Was Adam supposed to outsmart satan on his own? I don't think so. God set all the conditions, so if I can figure out what was guaranteed to happen, I'll bet God had some idea too. :)
Have some [clergy] abused [authority]? You bet! Did not Adam abuse God-given freedom?
If your clergy are relying on blind faith and are just as fallible as my clergy, then (if you get my meaning) I don't see why I should trust them or what they say. :)
You do realize that we can fail God?
Sure. I know from everyday personal experience. :) But He is neither surprised, nor is His plan altered in any way when this happens.
FK: "I'm not sure why you believe you have been immune to that for 2,000 years."
We go back to the beginnings and make corrections rather than inventions.
Well, then what about "always and everywhere believed"?
FK: "The Reformation was also a part of God's plan to correct many errors."
The Reformation started out that way and then proceeded to reject Church authority, proclaiming that the Church was in apostasy from the get go, for 1500 years. The Reformation certainly never made a universally convincing case for that.
Well, after the Apostles, no Christian faith has ever made a universally convincing case for its faith. :) I don't know how the word was used back then, but I wouldn't accuse you guys of apostasy. I just think that mistakes were made, and then compounded.
The differences between the East and the West are intraecclesial and not extraecclesial.
I'm not sure what difference that is supposed to make to a non-Apostolic Christian. You and the Apostolic West have much in common, to be sure, but one cannot hold both faiths simultaneously. One has to choose. One is right and one is wrong. I agree with you on some things more so than with the Latins, BUT the opposite is true as well. If the basis of Apostolic faith is blind, then how can one know which is correct?
You are, of course, correct. I did not mean to exclude the human Jesus.
Now the case of St. Stephan;
Acts 6:
5
The proposal was acceptable to the whole community, so they chose Stephen, a man filled with faith and the holy Spirit, also Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicholas of Antioch, a convert to Judaism.
Luke 1:
35
And the angel said to her in reply, “The holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.
There seems to be less emphasis on the Holy Spirit in terms of Stephan; and more emphasis on the Holy Spirit and the Power of the Most High coming over Mary. I’d say it was a matter of degree.
:::If you want to think that God being in full control means He owns evil, then have at it. We do not. The alternative is that man is really in control, not God, and that history unfolds according to random chance.:::
That is an alternative, not the only one. And fortunately for us all, it is an incorrect one.
You may or may not believe that preordination of evil is the same as authoring it; the fact is that if I create something that I preprogram, then I own the program and I own the results of that program. You have said it yourself that the Reformed view is that mankind is a slave to sin and evil. If the Reformed God created mankind to be preordained to act as a slave to sin and evil, then how is man responsible and the Reformed God not?
In your loriginal reply , did n't say going back to the Bible, FK. You invoked tradition of men.
GOD IS THE WITNESS!
Says Mohammad!
We don't have to trust Moses for anything
You are right. We choose to.
Does it ever seem odd to you that the Fathers you put so much trust in accepted the Bible on its face to a MUCH higher degree than you appear to?
Their choice, FK. I don;t find it strange at all. There are people who completely reject the Bible or Christ, and there are some who, by reading the Bible, "discover" that Christ is a "lesser" God than the Father...all Christian heretics read the Bible and believe what they choose!
Well, there is quite a difference between minor translation errors and asserting that WHOLESALE error runs rampant throughout the Bible
Filioque is a major error of translation. It split the Church. The Franks, in fact, accused the Greeks for "removing" the Filioque from the (original) Creed!
The words in Rom 5:12 can be translated in two very different ways. The root of the East-West disagreement on the original sin in contained in that translation. Not a minor error in my book!
In the way you present your opinion of the Bible it seems that one can only hang on to a "thread" of truth amid all the error, albeit that the thread is sufficient enough to define core Christianity.
The Bible has been copied over and over and containes all sorts of errors and omissions, deletions and additions that were not there in the originals. You seem to minimie the effects of bad transaltions and misundertsandings of single words. These errors lead to erroneous doctrines. Take for instance the idea that a first cousin in the Mediterranean is referred to as a "brother."
This was designated in those cultures as such to prevent any intermarrying for obvious reasons. But in the 21st century American culture a "brother" means a sibling by the same parents. This naturally drives all Ebglish-speaking Protestant Americans to conclude that Jesus had siblings and that Theotokos had "relations" with St. Jospeh.
Major theological differences spring from simple words!
[Christianity is superior to tohe rfaiths...what irresistable "proof" do you have for that?] The truth of their own reality.
LOL! FK, every religion in the world says the same thing.
[What's wrong with the Iliad?] Nothing, it remains a great work of literature
Troy existed historically; the plot described in the Iliad didn't. Jericho existed historically, but we have no clue why the walls came tumbling down...earquake is very likely, given that the river receded too and that it happened since then. Historical find of an artefact proves nothing theologically. There is no objective proof in the Bible any more than there is in Iliad.
Besides, for most of the Biblical hisotrical "factrs" there are no o bjective findings to even corroborate their existence (such as Exodus). Hammurabi's laws are alsmot identical to Moses' laws and older than Moses' laws. The Babylonian myth of the flood and other OT Biblical stories pre-existed the OT. Monotheism was established in Egypt way before Moses.
However, I think that everyone understood that Homer was taking poetic license with the portrayals of the gods and goddesses
No, Greeks believed their gods to be human-like in every respect except immortal and more powerful. They even allowed for sexual intercourse between gods and mortals, and their offspring would be demigods who were mortal in one specific area (i.e. Achilles' heel). Grfeeks raised humanism to divine levels, way before the Age of Reason did.
It was a STORY that used Greek gods, but it wasn't put forth as a true story
The Greeks believed in their gods as "real."
Kosta: [do] You think you'd be a Christian if you were born and raised in Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia?
FK: I claim I was elect long before I was ever born, so my birthplace and upbringing are irrelevant to whether I am of the elect. Even if I was raised to be a terrorist, at some point God would have "gotten me" and converted me to the truth. He loved His elect long before any of them even knew who He was
I see. That means God creates little terrorists in Muslim lands and doesn't want them to be converted to the truth. Why don't you just come out and say that the Muslims are God-created "reprobate" the way you are God-created "elect." and then call for a Crusade?
So, in other words, the Reformed theology teaches that all those wo are not Christian are really God's rejects? How does that make the Reformed theology any different from Muslim fundamentalist teachings that one is either a Muslim or deserves to die?
Man shoveled God away from reason and into Mystery (the irrational -- where anything goes). This was man spitting on God. Once God was placed into Mystery
I see, so we knew God and then we made Him a Mystery? Is that what you are saying? The perfect, ineffable, invisible, unlimited God, whose thoughs are not our thoughts and whose ways are not our ways, was perfectly known to imperfect man? Sometimes I think we are from a different planet, FK.
Obviously "Mystery" doesn't explain anything real that we can relate to...
Except through prayer.
Before "Mystery", man had a set of presuppositions of fact from which to start. Man's autonomy took those away
Presuppositions of facts [about God], yes. Then came Jesus Christ and showed to everyone that God was nothing like those presuppositions.
Approached properly, the reason we have available to us is fully satiated by God
"Properly" by whose rules?
We believers have everything we need to know available to us
Which explains why we have so many disagreements...and denominations...
We don't have to give up by calling out "Mystery" or taking a leap of faith
There is only one fact about God, FK: He is a supreme Mystery.
:::He created His Church, gave the keys to His Apostles and told them to carry on His work and safeguard the truth revealed in an unchanging and eternal Church that nothing will bring down. The Apostolic Church taught what it teaches to this day. And thats same Church put together the NT.:::
And this is what rankles so much. With the arrogance of civilization and wealth, and the envy of the extent of the Church during the early 1500s, the royalty of middle and northern Europe used the Reformers as the excuse and the vehicle to seize Church assets and proclaim temporal (and spiritual) rule over their lands.
Every new self-determined pope now can whip up a new theology and hang out a shingle. The latest successful pope after Rick Warren appears to be Joel Osteen. Have you dipped into his theological marshmallow fondue for a taste?
:::God is sitting up in heaven, enjoying himself, just hanging around. Then, suddenly, his Son appears.
God says, “Hey, I thought I sent you down there?”
Jesus replied, “Well, I guess they didn’t want me, they crucified me and tossed me in a tomb.”
God: “Great, now what are we going to do. If I left it up to them, no one would come. Boy, you plan and you plan, but hey, you can’t plan human nature.”:::
Have you ever thought of going into used car sales?
:::So, what you are saying is that your religion is irrational and stupid? Finally, something we can agree on :>):::
I’d be careful about labelling a supremely holy gift from God as irrational and stupid. But that’s just me.
:::The above brought to you by the Oxford American Dictionary.:::
Funny. Our beliefs are brought to us by the Lord Jesus Christ. I guess that you pick ‘em up wherever you choose. That darn ol’ free will again.
Noah and his family were saved from physical death.
Mary gave birth to the Son of God.
I’d say that that makes her more exceptional than Noah; not to put Noah down at all, but I don’t see the two states of holiness comparable.
:::Since it was foretold that a virgin would bear a child, maybe God had a few other virgins waiting, just in case Mary said “No.”:::
We don’t know what God had waiting in the wings, do we? All we know is what we are told in Scripture or by the Church. Did God create the conditions that would ensure that Mary would do what she did? Why not? We do believe that God predestines certain people to Heaven. Why not Mary?
Paul tells us that we should not believe anyone who comes along. Paul does tell us that the Church is the pillar of Truth. We are to believe the Church, not any old wandering minstrel or street preacher.
We do not know what God has in mind for the virtuous pagans. The Church does understand that there is a baptism of desire. You may further find Scripturally that those who have been given the Word and not believed are going to be treated much harsher than those who have never heard.
This is not biblical or church teachings, but I would suppose that if Mary had said ‘no’, then she may not have included in Scripture.
We don’t know; all we know is that she said ‘yes’ and we are where we are because of that acceptance.
After the Crucifixion?
Acts 1:
11
They said, “Men of Galilee, why are you standing there looking at the sky? This Jesus who has been taken up from you into heaven will return in the same way as you have seen him going into heaven.”
12
Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a sabbath day’s journey away.
13
When they entered the city they went to the upper room where they were staying, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James son of Alphaeus, Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James.
14
All these devoted themselves with one accord to prayer, together with some women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers.
Rev 12:
1
A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.
“”There is Scriptural evidence that Jesus multiplied the loaves and fish therefore I believe it.””
I,m glad to hear you believe it.
Now, when you take into account all of Jesus’s miracles...
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/jesus_christ_divinity.html#jesus-IV
...there is no reason for you to be skeptical about the Divinity of Christ
Yes, since Adam and Eve that is the state in which man comes into the world. Man is responsible because he is the one carrying out the sin without God PROACTIVELY forcing him. (If God "zapped" people with evil, then you would be right.) When it was part of God's plan that someone sin, He left that person alone to his own nature and the sin inevitably happened. Does God have a responsibility to PREVENT this? Or, did God have a responsibility to give everyone a sinless nature? I say no, and you seem to say yes. If God had neither of these responsibilities, then God cannot be blamed for the sin.
But if God had decreed what Adam and Eve would do, along with the results that it would carry for all humanity, then He is still responsible.
We are saying that the Reformed theology of the creation of sin in the first place is the creation of the Reformed God. Preordained. You cannot wriggle out of it.
Says Mohammad!
Then anyone relying on blind faith would be right to flip a coin between Islam and Christianity.
The words in Rom 5:12 can be translated in two very different ways. The root of the East-West disagreement on the original sin in contained in that translation. Not a minor error in my book!
I can see disagreement in interpretation, but I couldn't find any substantive difference in translation (i.e. NAB). What version has this dramatic difference, and is it the version that you use?
You seem to minimize the effects of bad translations and misunderstandings of single words. These errors lead to erroneous doctrines. Take for instance the idea that a first cousin in the Mediterranean is referred to as a "brother."
I recognize that there are both bad and agenda-driven translations out there. That is no reason to throw all translations out. God will still get the message through to His elect. Concerning "brother", isn't the real problem in the underlying theology? I.e., many times the translation follows the theology. For example, that is why only the Orthodox know how to read Greek, and everyone else in the world is wrong. :) God works through these issues, and the elect are still Christians even if they are wrong on some points.
This was designated in those cultures as such to prevent any intermarrying for obvious reasons. But in the 21st century American culture a "brother" means a sibling by the same parents.
Sure, and with a theological agenda, all uses of "brother" mean cousin, and, apparently all people in those days were only children and had no siblings. :) The word given for "brothers" in Matt. 4:18 is Adelphos, describing that Peter and Andrew were brothers. The EXACT same word is used in Matt. 12:46 referring to Jesus' "mother and brothers". After that, it's interpretation.
Troy existed historically; the plot described in the Iliad didn't. Jericho existed historically, but we have no clue why the walls came tumbling down...earthquake is very likely, given that the river receded too and that it happened since then.
I'm not certain if you mean a random, but extremely fortuitous earthquake since Joshua and his army had already been there 7 days, or a God-breathed earthquake specifically timed to the sound of the trumpet and the shout of the people. My guess would be the former. :) If so, then why does your blind faith flee you here? If you accept Christ on blind faith, then why can't you also accept the Bible stories on their faces?
Hammurabi's laws are almost identical to Moses' laws and older than Moses' laws. The Babylonian myth of the flood and other OT Biblical stories pre-existed the OT. Monotheism was established in Egypt way before Moses.
It appears that your blind faith extends to everything EXCEPT the Bible. :)
I see. That means God creates little terrorists in Muslim lands and doesn't want them to be converted to the truth. Why don't you just come out and say that the Muslims are God-created "reprobate" the way you are God-created "elect." and then call for a Crusade?
God DID create those who would become, by design, terrorists in Muslim lands. He did the same for some born in America. If He wanted them to be converted to the truth, they would be. God has that kind of power. Being born surrounded by non-believers is by no means a death sentence. We have the work of missionaries whom God has sent. God commands that we go out into the whole world and preach to these people. ...... God hasn't led me to call for a crusade... yet! :)
So, in other words, the Reformed theology teaches that all those who are not Christian are really God's rejects? How does that make the Reformed theology any different from Muslim fundamentalist teachings that one is either a Muslim or deserves to die?
No, we teach that all those who aren't Christians are EITHER rejects OR those who have not been regenerated YET. That's one thing that separates us from Muslims. Another is that we don't kill those who disagree with our theology just for that fact.
FK: "Man shoveled God away from reason and into Mystery (the irrational -- where anything goes). This was man spitting on God. Once God was placed into Mystery ..."
I see, so we knew God and then we made Him a Mystery? Is that what you are saying? The perfect, ineffable, invisible, unlimited God, whose thoughts are not our thoughts and whose ways are not our ways, was perfectly known to imperfect man?
No, I never said anything about knowing God perfectly. I'm talking about the fact that up until the Renaissance, Christians had certain presuppositions about God. Such and such were givens, etc. With the new thinking those suppositions were tossed and a man-made and man-based model emerged. Man discovered how smart he thought he was, and so his need and respect for God were depressed. By placing God into Mystery, man could mold God into any shape he wanted. I just consider this a step backward since it has led to modern secular humanism.
FK: "Approached properly, the reason we have available to us is fully satiated by God."
"Properly" by whose rules?
By God's rules IF He intended His Holy word to be a revelation to all His children. If He intended the scriptures to be a puzzle book only decipherable to a few elite (who choose themselves), then reason is thrown out the window.
FK: "We believers have everything we need to know available to us."
Which explains why we have so many disagreements...and denominations...
Yes, available doesn't mean apprehended. That part is a lifelong process.
There is only one fact about God, FK: He is a supreme Mystery.
That is your choice to believe. However, the Bible paints a VERY different picture. It is there, and God will give us understanding in His own good time for each individual.
I would say that both were blessed by God. Both were used by God to further his plan of redemption. Both were sinners chosen by God to do his will. I would say they were equal. Equally blessed for God’s glory.
If man sinned because God preordained it, then it is God's doing and man cannot do otherwise.
When it was part of God's plan that someone sin, He left that person alone to his own nature and the sin inevitably happened
So, now we have man's own nature that somehow acts outside of God's will??? That's a new one for a Reformed thinking. Yet, even though it is man's own nature and will I presume, he still has only one choice—to do what God preodained man to do. It's God who decides who "sins" and who doesn't.
But, the real kicker is that mankind has already been either condemned or "saved" before there even existed man. So, sin is really something God wanted man to do "just because." No judgment comes out of committing sin, because everyone's end has been predestined before they even existed. Maybe that why Luther said, sin boldly....
In either case the concept of sin, like porayer, and everything esle we do, becomes meaningless because we are just puppets on the string...
But Paul certainly did NOT mean a hierarchy of a certain faction of God's Church. The institution of the current Roman Catholic Church did not nearly exist in Paul's time. Do you think Paul recognized Peter as his superior? No way. Paul didn't tell the Bereans to check with any church, he told them to check with scripture.
We do not know what God has in mind for the virtuous pagans. The Church does understand that there is a baptism of desire.
Is this a way of saying that having faith is nice, but it is not required for salvation as a rule? Your Church may understand that, but the Bible understands something very different. :)
You may further find Scripturally that those who have been given the Word and not believed are going to be treated much harsher than those who have never heard.
All according to God's will.
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.