Posted on 07/22/2007 7:40:38 PM PDT by xzins
Wednesday, 11 July 2007
Yesterday's Reuters headline: "The Vatican on Tuesday said Christian denominations outside the Roman Catholic Church were not full churches of Jesus Christ." The actual proclamation, posted on the official Vatican Web site, says that Protestant Churches are really "ecclesial communities" rather than Churches, because they lack apostolic succession, and therefore they "have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery." Furthermore, not even the Eastern Orthodox Churches are real Churches, even though they were explicitly referred to as such in the Vatican document Unitatis Redintegratio (Decree on Ecumenism). The new document explains that they were only called Churches because "the Council wanted to adopt the traditional use of the term." This new clarification, issued officially by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, but in fact strongly supported by Pope Benedict XVI, manages to insult both Protestants and the Orthodox, and it may set ecumenism back a hundred years.
The new document, officially entitled "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church," claims that the positions it takes do not reverse the intent of various Vatican II documents, especially Unitatis Redintegratio, but merely clarify them. In support of this contention, it cites other documents, all issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: Mysterium Ecclesiae (1973), Communionis notio (1992), and Dominus Iesus (2000). The last two of these documents were issued while the current pope, as Cardinal Ratzinger, was prefect of the Congregation. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was born in 1542 with the name Sacred Congregation of the Universal Inquisition, and for centuries it has operated as an extremely conservative force with the Roman Catholic Church, opposing innovation and modernizing tendencies, suppressing dissent, and sometimes, in its first few centuries, persecuting those who believed differently. More recently, the congregation has engaged in the suppression of some of Catholicism's most innovative and committed thinkers, such as Yves Congar, Hans Küng, Charles Curran, Matthew Fox, and Jon Sobrino and other liberation theologians. In light of the history of the Congregation of the Faith, such conservative statements as those released this week are hardly surprising, though they are quite unwelcome.
It is natural for members of various Christian Churches to believe that the institutions to which they belong are the best representatives of Christ's body on earth--otherwise, why wouldn't they join a different Church? It is disingenuous, however, for the leader of a Church that has committed itself "irrevocably" (to use Pope John Paul II's word in Ut Unum Sint [That They May Be One] 3, emphasis original) to ecumenism to claim to be interested in unity while at the same time declaring that all other Christians belong to Churches that are in some way deficient. How different was the attitude of Benedict's predecessors, who wrote, "In subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the [Roman] Catholic Church--for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame" (Unitatis Redintegratio 3). In Benedict's view, at various times in history groups of Christians wandered from the original, pure Roman Catholic Church, and any notion of Christian unity today is predicated on the idea of those groups abandoning their errors and returning to the Roman Catholic fold. The pope's problem seems to be that he is a theologian rather than a historian. Otherwise he could not possibly make such outrageous statements and think that they were compatible with the spirit of ecumenism that his immediate predecessors promoted.
One of the pope's most strident arguments against the validity of other Churches is that they can't trace their bishops' lineages back to the original apostles, as the bishops in the Roman Catholic Church can. There are three problems with this idea.
First, many Protestants deny the importance of apostolic succession as a guarantor of legitimacy. They would argue that faithfulness to the Bible and/or the teachings of Christ is a better measure of authentic Christian faith than the ability to trace one's spiritual ancestry through an ecclesiastical bureaucracy. A peripheral knowledge of the lives of some of the medieval and early modern popes (e.g., Stephen VI, Sergius III, Innocent VIII, Alexander VI) is enough to call the insistence on apostolic succession into serious question. Moreover, the Avignon Papacy and the divided lines of papal claimants in subsequent decades calls into serious question the legitimacy of the whole approach. Perhaps the strongest argument against the necessity of apostolic succession comes from the Apostle Paul, who was an acknowledged apostle despite not having been ordained by one of Jesus' original twelve disciples. In fact, Paul makes much of the fact that his authority came directly from Jesus Christ rather than from one of the apostles (Gal 1:11-12). Apostolic succession was a useful tool for combating incipient heresy and establishing the antiquity of the churches in particular locales, but merely stating that apostolic succession is a necessary prerequisite for being a true church does not make it so.
The second problem with the new document's insistence upon apostolic succession is the fact that at least three other Christian communions have apostolic succession claims that are as valid as that of the Roman Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox Churches, which split from the Roman Catholic Church in 1054, can trace their lineages back to the same apostles that the Roman Catholic Church can, a fact acknowledged by Unitatis Redintegratio 14. The Oriental Orthodox Churches, such as the Coptic and Ethiopic Orthodox Churches, split from the Roman Catholic Church several centuries earlier, but they too can trace their episcopal lineages back to the same apostles claimed by the Roman Catholic Church as its founders. Finally, the Anglican Church, which broke away from the Roman Catholic Church during the reign of King Henry VIII, can likewise trace the lineage of every bishop back through the first archbishop of Canterbury, Augustine. In addition to these three collections of Christian Churches, the Old Catholics and some Methodists also see value in the idea of apostolic succession, and they can trace their episcopal lineages just as far back as Catholic bishops can.
The third problem with the idea of apostolic succession is that the earliest bishops in certain places are simply unknown, and the lists produced in the third and fourth centuries that purported to identify every bishop back to the founding of the church in a particular area were often historically unreliable. Who was the founding bishop of Byzantium? Who brought the gospel to Alexandria? To Edessa? To Antioch? There are lists that give names (e.g., http://www.friesian.com/popes.htm), such as the Apostles Mark (Alexandria), Andrew (Byzantium), and Thaddeus (Armenia), but the association of the apostles with the founding of these churches is legendary, not historical. The most obvious breakdown of historicity in the realm of apostolic succession involves none other than the see occupied by the pope, the bishop of Rome. It is certain that Peter did make his way to Rome before the time of Nero, where he perished, apparently in the Neronian persecution following the Great Fire of Rome, but it is equally certain that the church in Rome predates Peter, as it also predates Paul's arrival there (Paul also apparently died during the Neronian persecution). The Roman Catholic Church may legitimately claim a close association with both Peter and Paul, but it may not legitimately claim that either was the founder of the church there. The fact of the matter is that the gospel reached Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Edessa, and other early centers of Christianity in the hands of unknown, faithful Christians, not apostles, and the legitimacy of the churches established there did not suffer in the least because of it.
All the talk in the new document about apostolic succession is merely a smokescreen, however, for the main point that the Congregation of the Faith and the pope wanted to drive home: recognition of the absolute primacy of the pope. After playing with the words "subsists in" (Lumen Gentium [Dogmatic Constitution on the Church] 8) and "church" (Unitatis Redintegratio 14) in an effort to make them mean something other than what they originally meant, the document gets down to the nitty-gritty. "Since communion with the Catholic Church, the visible head of which is the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter, is not some external complement to a particular Church but rather one of its internal constitutive principles, these venerable Christian communities lack something in their condition as particular churches." From an ecumenical standpoint, this position is a non-starter. Communion with Rome and acknowledging the authority of the pope as bishop of Rome is a far different matter from recognizing the pope as the "visible head" of the entire church, without peer. The pope is an intelligent man, and he knows that discussions with other Churches will make no progress on the basis of this prerequisite, so the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the pope, despite his protestations, has no interest in pursuing ecumenism. Trying to persuade other Christians to become Roman Catholics, which is evidently the pope's approach to other Churches, is not ecumenism, it's proselytism.
Fortunately, this document does not represent the viewpoint of all Catholics, either laypeople or scholars. Many ordinary Catholics would scoff at the idea that other denominations were not legitimate Churches, which just happen to have different ideas about certain topics and different ways of expressing a common Christianity. Similarly, many Catholic scholars are doing impressive work in areas such as theology, history, biblical study, and ethics, work that interacts with ideas produced by non-Catholic scholars. In the classroom and in publications, Catholics and non-Catholics learn from each other, challenge one another, and, perhaps most importantly, respect one another.
How does one define the Church? Christians have many different understandings of the term, and Catholics are divided among themselves, as are non-Catholics. The ecumenical movement is engaged in addressing this issue in thoughtful, meaningful, and respectful ways. Will the narrow-minded view expressed in "Responses" be the death-knell of the ecumenical movement? Hardly. Unity among Christians is too important an idea to be set aside. Will the document set back ecumenical efforts? Perhaps, but Christians committed to Christian unity--Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant alike--will get beyond it. The ecumenical movement is alive and well, and no intemperate pronouncement from the Congregation of the Faith, or the current pope, can restrain it for long. Even if ecumenism, at least as it involves the Roman Catholic Church's connection with other Churches, is temporarily set back a hundred years, that distance can be closed either by changes of heart or changes of leadership.
He creates all for His purposes. What about Judas? Unless we attribute his actions to "lucky" happenstance, then we have to say that he was created for one major purpose:
John 17:12 : While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled.
While this is certainly unfortunate for Judas, it still IS what it is. This was God's plan, and there are going to be casualties along the way. I suppose He "could" have done it any other way He wanted to, but we know that He chose to do it "THIS" way. All we can do is nod our heads and accept it, even if it doesn't seem fair to us. Judas was made just as much "in His image" as anyone else, but he was predestined to perdition nonetheless.
They are all His creation and what he creates is good.
Yes, that which God creates is good because it is destined to serve His purpose. For this, it is irrelevant whether God created "sour souls", because it was appointed that Judas would betray Jesus from before he was born.
It's fun to play with the concept: Light = Day
A day with the Lord is as a thousand years.
Light and time seemed linked, and light yields enormous amounts of time.
I only know that because of what others have learned and taught, but it's interesting that before the time/speed of light link was explored, such a link was already present in God's Word.
My chapel friend had been an independent baptist:
Pong - are you a reader of Dake?
Here is what one online source has to say about Dake:
Finis Jennings Dake
The Dake Annotated Study BibleFinis Jennings Dake (1902-1987) was an American Pentecostal minister and evangelist known primarily for his voluminous writings on the subjects of Pentecostal (or Charismatic) Evangelical Christian spirituality and Premillennial Dispensationalism: his most well known work being his Dake Annotated Reference Bible.
Dake’s work was arguably the first popularly received study bible produced by someone from a Pentecostal theological framework. Previous similar efforts were invariably produced from ardent anti-pentecostalists (such as C.I.Scofield’s Study Bible).
Religious Conversion And Personal Life Dake received Jesus Christ as his personal Savior at the age of 17. Dake claimed that he also received a 'special anointing' that allowed him to quote major portions of Scripture from memory. Dake preached his first sermon in 1925 and was ordained by the Assemblies of God denomination two years later. After working as a pastor and evangelist in Texas and Oklahoma, he moved to Zion, Illinois, in order to become the pastor of the Christian Assembly Church. In Zion, he also founded Shiloh Bible Institute, which ultimately merged with Central Bible Institute and which was located in the home formerly owned by controversial faith healer John Alexander Dowie.
During Dake’s ministry in Zion, he was the center of a controversy. In 1937, he was convicted of violating the Mann Act by willfully transporting 16-year-old hitchhiker Emma Barelli across the Wisconsin state line “for the purpose of debauchery and other immoral practices.” Dake pleaded guilty and was sentenced to six months in a Milwaukee jail. Though he maintained his innocence of intent, Dake subsequently lost ordination with the Assemblies of God.
Prolific Christian Author His writings have been the source of some controversy within certain Christian circles: He has been accused of advocating a nonstandard interpretation of the Trinity, as well as other controversial viewpoints and beliefs such as the gap theory, adoptionism, and even racial segregation.
Besides the Dake Study Bible, he is known for the two-year Bible course, "God's Plan for Man."
In spite of the critics his influence among contemporary Charismatic and Pentecostal should not been underestimated. Popular televangelist Benny Hinn has credited Finis Dake with helping to mold his theological beliefs. Indeed his influence has been so strong that at least two popular Pentecostal evangelists have been accused of actually plagiarizing his writings: Kenneth Hagin and Jimmy Swaggart.
Death Dake died of complications from Parkinson's disease in 1987.
Amen brother! I have no idea how or why it happens, I am just thankful THAT it happens. :)
Indeed, xzins! And we shouldn't be surprised by this. God's Word specifies the all that is and can be, from the Alpha to the Omega.
Ah, the plot thinckens...! Good find stfassissi. Any comments Ping-Pong?
So was the Ptolemaic geocentric model for practical purposes. The Big Bang theory doesn't explain why the universe is not slowing down. The "dark matter" went after years of unsuccessful mathematical acrobatics of semi-lunatics working in universities to "dark energy." In 30 years the Big Bang will be redacted into something else or discarded altogether just like the Steady State theory and its proponents.
Like I said, he chose certain individuals to reveal Himself gradually. He did that based on His foreknowledge of their free decisions.
If it is an ancient Jewish belief and our Bible is from ancient Jewish heritage maybe we need to listen to them
I am a Christian. Jews read the same scripture and see and believe different things. We are not imitators of Jews.
There are several scriptures that point to an age before our present age. How do you and others deal with those?
Which ones?
I've shown where the Bible tells us there was a first age
Only in your mind. Not to me you didn't.
He [Satan] no longer holds those positions but he has a job to do and it won't be complete until he is released again...
Look, if Satan was punished and condemned by God in the Garden of Eden, because by then he has supposed fallen from grace, then what is he doing in Job talking to God as if nothing happened?
As the other FReeper pointed out in another one of your posts, you believe that Cain was a product of sexual union between Eve and Satan. I don't know what Christian cult you belong to, but that's not what Christianity teaches.
I don't really know what else to say to you.
After all, science only looks at the physical creation from a position "inside" the physical creation. It can never remove itself to "outside" the physical creation to speak to the whole of it - much less to the whole of "all that there is."
To paraphrase Jastrow, when scientists scale that last mountain of knowledge they'll find the theologians sitting there waiting for them.
The first thing Scripture tells us is that there was a beginning.
God said and it was. A thing is true because He says it:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. - John 1:1-3
By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. - Psalms 33:6
Remember the former things of old: for I [am] God, and [there is] none else; [I am] God, and [there is] none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times [the things] that are not [yet] done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: - Isaiah 46:9-10
Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] he might have the preeminence. For it pleased [the Father] that in him should all fulness dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, [I say], whether [they be] things in earth, or things in heaven.– Col 1:15-20
Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness. - I Th 5:5
This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. - I John 1:5-7
Dark matter exists in the centers of galaxies - very high positive gravity regions (space/time indentations) around which the star systems orbit.
Dark energy exists in the regions between galaxies - and has the character of negative gravity (space/time outdents) which accelerate the expansion of the universe (space/time continuum.)
Ordinary matter which the Standard Model suggests is the Higgs field/boson has not yet been observed or created. CERN is planning another test this year, so we'll see.
But physics has already moved on to other possibilities such as supersymmetry and extra dimensional theories, e.g. that the particles we see are actually massless, their apparent masses corresponding to extra-dimensional momentum components we can’t as yet detect. Mysteries of Mass.
P.S. Wesson's theory suggests that the particles in this four dimensional space/time may actually be as little as a single particle in a fifth, time-like dimension, multiply imaged 1080 times.
The scientists have been working their hearts out trying to get God out of the picture, because a beginning of real space and real time means there had to be an uncaused cause of it - and there can be no uncaused cause of space, time and physical causation other than God the Creator.
This does not mean that science is anti-God but rather that science has embraced "methodological naturalism" which means that they cannot say "God did it!" LOL!
The bottom line is that they all rely on the geometry for physical causation and ...
In the absence of time, events cannot occur.
I am a Christian too. :) My faith can be found in all of the Bible, of which the Gospels are an extremely important part. I don't see any part of the Bible as being "less true" than any other part.
Prov 16:4 says God creates wicked people. Well, if David believed it it's okay because the Jews believed it, because we know their revelation was incomplete.
I'm starting to get the idea that when you specifically ask for Biblical evidence, you will only consider quotes from the Gospels. :)
Matt 22:14 : "For many are invited, but few are chosen."
Cherry-picking out of context, FK. Verse 8 tells us why they were not chosen: because of how they came to the wedding (inappropriately dressed!)
It's not cherry-picking, it's a parable about the Kingdom of Heaven. Being "invited" refers to the outward call of God to all men. Being "chosen" refers to the inward call of the elect.
"Then he said to his servants, 'The wedding banquet is ready, but those I invited did not deserve to come"—Mat 22:8 The reason they were rejected is not because the king didn't want them, but because they showed up in disrespect. It was their doing. They condemned themselves.
They did condemn themselves. They were of the "Lord, Lord" crowd. They believed themselves deserving, but were not. What the king said to them was the same as Jesus saying "I never knew you".
[On Rom 9:9-13:] This is all about God's foreknowledge...not predestination. He is simply saying that He knows what choices we will make.
Foreknowledge and predestination are inseparable IF one believes that God has a plan in any real sense. If one believes that God's plan is to sit back on a couch and watch as a mere spectator what happens on earth, and then DECLARE THAT as His plan, then your statements would be correct. However, if God is instead a sovereign being who actively intervenes within His creation to effectuate a specific plan, according to His will, for the unfolding of history, then foreknowledge, by definition, wholly includes predestination. He is foreknowing His own actions.
But how did they get to be wicked? Did He not "predestine" them (according to the Reformed theology) to become wicked before they were born? (note here that in your theology then the original Sin, Adam and Eve's fall, has nothing to do with the wickedness of the wicked, since the wicked were predestined to be wicked before the foundation of the world).
What? Do you think the Fall was an accident? That was predestined too! :) It all fits. The Fall was predestined which caused all followers to be born into original sin, and be thus wicked by birth. After birth some were predestined to become righteous, and some were predestined to simply remain wicked, as they were born.
If you believe God hardened Pharaoh's heart, and give Him credit for it, then how can you not give credit to God for not giving hearing to those who don't hear His voice? It's not His "fault," then, but His doing!
Hardening Pharaoh's heart was an act of OMISSION, not COMMISION. God did nothing but leave Pharaoh alone, as He does when the sins of others are also a part of His plan. It's not what God did, but what He didn't do. And, He has no duty or responsibility to protect anyone from sin who is not of the elect.
Everyone else will see that this emperor has no clothes, yet some will maintain that God in the Reformed theology somehow doesn't get "credit" for the reprobate, the wicked, the evildoers, or for the evil itself!
I don't know what you mean by "credit" here. God created the reprobate, knowing they would be so. He then left them alone when it suited His purposes, and they sinned, according to His divine plan. Then, at some point they died and were forever lost. What exactly is the evil that God did or is responsible for here?
Why not just confess it: the Reformed believe that God is the author of evil, and be done with it?
:) By your reading, it appears that either man controls his own destiny, OR God is the author of evil. Neither of these is true. As Marlowe recently said: "God is in control, and man is responsible". I see no problem with this statement and agree with it completely. Yet, some believe it is a contradiction.
We say that God is always in control. So, when a man sins, we put the responsibility on the man, but you put the responsibility (in your view of us) on God because He IS in control. It just doesn't work like that. You are applying (on our behalf) a sort of "Respondeat superior" view to all sin based on who is ultimately in control of the world. If God is in control, then all evil is accountable to Him. But if man is in control, then it's each man for Himself. Therefore, I perceive your reasoning to go, man must be in control since God cannot be the author of sin. The fatal flaw here is almost always found in the human duties placed on God to make Him behave in a way that makes sense to us. We shouldn't do that. :)
FK: "Until Adam sinned He didn't have to reject anyone. After he sinned, God had to reject EVERYONE, unless He provided a way out, which He did for some but not all."
Kosta: FK, the Reformed keep saying that God chose His "elect" elite from before foundations of the world! By the same token, He had to reject "those" who were predestined to perdition. This had to happen before Adam and Eve. So, their fall has nothing to do with everyone's destiny.
OK, if you put it that way you're right, and it's my bad for not being more clear. I was thinking along a different line. In the grand scheme, the reprobate were identified before the Fall. But the Fall was still involved, it was the means WITHIN time. The Fall answers the question: "How will God accomplish reprobating those who are so predestined?" Answer: "He will allow Adam and Eve to fall, thus damning all humanity, and He will not save the reprobate."
What is even more disturbing is that this suggests pre-existence of the souls, which is a pagan and Gnostic belief shared by ancient Jews, a belief which was resolutely condemned with the condemnation of Origen, who championed such heresy, and has no place in a Christian denomination.
Well, if the concept of preexistence of the soul is pitted as being contrary to creationism, then obviously I believe in creationism. However, that does not obfuscate verses like:
Jer 1:5 : "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."
So, in your terms, God knew all along what He was going to create. We, and the damned, "existed" in perhaps only thought, but since it was God's thought, what's the difference? His plan never changed, so that when He thought it, before creating it, all that was left was the doing.
I never thought of my children as my "instruments." God of the Gospels teaches us to look at our children as our images.
But you are not GOD to your children, you are their earthly father, (and a good and faithful one I am sure). :) The analogy doesn't fit here because of that. The Gospels teach us to teach our children to become the same Godly instruments that we should aspire to be in God's service. :) The idea of us being His instruments is found here, for example:
Acts 9:15 : But the Lord said to Ananias, "Go! This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel.
2 Tim 2:21 : If a man cleanses himself from the latter, he will be an instrument for noble purposes, made holy, useful to the Master and prepared to do any good work.
---------------
FK: "And He is also the Potter and we are the clay. The Potter can do whatever He wants with His clay, and He doesn't need any help or cooperation from the clay."
Yes, but God chooses only good. So, while His choices are unlimited, they are all and always good.
But what is good? I think we both know that what God thinks is "good" is different than what we would normally think is good. Was the crucifixion "good"? God would say "yes", because it was necessary to His plan. (But of course when we watch a movie like "The Passion" we don't think it is good at all! :) Likewise, when God predestined Judas to betray Jesus, that was also "good". All I'm saying is that between us and God, it is a relative term.
No, I've never heard of him.
I'm thinking that the "became" verse of Genesis is a big factor in the "Dake Bible."
I study from the Companion Bible, KJV by E.W. Bullinger. His side note on "was" in Gen.1: is that it should have been translated as "became" because:
"The Revisers ill-advisedly decided that "all such words, now printed in italics, as are plainly implied in the Hebrew, and necessary in English, be printed in common type." One of the consequences of this decision is that the verb "to be" is not distinguished from the verb "to become", so that the lessons conveyed by the A.V. "was" and "was" in Gen.1:2; 3 and 4; 9 and 10; 11 and 12, are lost." Bullinger
I don't know anything about Dake but I have seen Benny Hinn on television - I find him detestable.
.....Ping
This is not something I have studied in depth. Sorry I don’t have anything to add. I tried looking through these references, but I kept getting sidetracked with metaphors (e.g. Zadok = “righteous”). Therefore, regardless of lineage, it makes sense that the “sons” of “Zadok” - those in the image of their [righteous] father - would know how to discern between the holy and the profane.
Verse 28 seems to indicate Levites, though.
I don't study from a website.
I know you didn't come up with this stuff on your own. Somebody had to walk you through it.
No, I didn't come up with it on my own. When I first heard it I was caught by surprise as I had never been taught these things but instead of being angry at who he is or what church he was part of I listened to see if it was God's Word. The things I have relayed here are written in scipture, they are true. So....are you saying you want to talk about where I "come up with this stuff" instead of discussing "the stuff" that is God's Word.
What church do you go to, and where on the internet can we find the teachings that you are espousing here.
Why P-Marlowe? I've given you a deep teaching, about the 3 earth ages and you haven't tried to understand or refute it, as far as I can tell. You just want to find out where the teaching comes from. Would you react differently to the other truths (or what I consider truths)?
To be fair I will direct you to My Church.
Thank you, I appreciate that but I have no interest in denominations or who belongs to what. What does interest me is the wisdom in His Word. That is what I want to learn about - as far as any of us being Catholic, Protestant or whatever, I just don't care as long as we are on the right path. You believe I am on the wrong path but you must tell me why. Don't just throw grenades like "heretical", "gnostic", etc. but tell me why you think the ideas I put forth are incorrect.
.......Ping
I agree, as does Diego. It seems to be from that tribe only.
It's odd how you can read verses just a month or so later and see things that you completely missed before. That was one of them and it was plainly written there. I assumed any of the elect could be in that position but it appears it will only be the duty of the Levitical elect.
Thank you.......Ping
What church teaches this nonsense?
He foreknew them and He tells us that the "foreknowing" is before they are in the womb:
Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee,, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations."
That doesn't mean He based the foreknowing on the free decisions they would later make in life. He knew them from before they were born. He knew what they did in the first age.
I am a Christian. Jews read the same scripture and see and believe different things. We are not imitators of Jews.
I also am Christian. Part of our bible, it's very foundation is Jewish. You cannot divorce yourself from everything that Bible teaches nor do you have to imitate them. They are part of us, or we of them. We are brothers and sisters with the same God. Their eyes will be opened to Christ being the Messiah - it is all part of God's plan that He had from the foundation (the beginning of this 2nd age).
Look, if Satan was punished and condemned by God in the Garden of Eden, because by then he has supposed fallen from grace, then what is he doing in Job talking to God as if nothing happened?
Genesis 3:14 And the Lord God said unto the serpent,"Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
He is cursed above all - he is the only one that is already condemned to death. (The fallen angels are also but he is the only one by name). "Going upon thy belly" is a term of humiliation. The next verse tells us that he will be around for a long, long time:
15. And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her Seed; It shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise His heel."
That was the first prophecy of the Bible. Satan, the serpent, did bruise His heel when He was nailed to the cross but Christ will bruise his head at the end of days and that is a killing blow. (I wonder what the "thy seed and her Seed" could mean???)
So, he has fallen from grace but he is, or was, allowed to be in the garden, to tempt Jesus on earth and also to be in heaven talking to God (Job). He is now there, being held by Michael but will be released. His spirit however roams earth freely as does God's Holy Spirit.
As the other FReeper pointed out in another one of your posts, you believe that Cain was a product of sexual union between Eve and Satan.
I do - (enmity between thy seed and her Seed). There are many other scriptures that point to that union too, are you open to discussing them?
Ping...There are several scriptures that point to an age before our present age. How do you and others deal with those?
Kosta...Which ones?
See posts 2119 and 2086.
......Ping
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.