Posted on 07/22/2007 7:40:38 PM PDT by xzins
See 2,618
No, when there is a change of heart it is to believe in something. That "something" coincides with the fundamentals of core Christianity
Christianity is based on the trinitarian God. When you come to believe (by change of heart or mind, whichever), you have no idea what you are believeing except that you realize there is God. So you just don't become a core Christian form the start. You are indoctrinated in it.
I don't see any trouble because I cannot recall the verse that says that satan is more powerful than God. While satan can outwit me alone, satan cannot snatch me out of God's hands
Have you ever heard of Adam and Eve?
And yes, I absolutely could be driven to violence if I turn away from God to a certain degree. I have certainly lost my temper before as a Christian, so it's just a different level of the same thing
Many a Christian has committed murder. But you believe those are already forgiven because Christ "paid" the bill. It is no wonder we have such a violent society, FK. It's based on the Protestant notion that no matter what one does, he is safe as long as you call on Jesus (it's that pecca fortiter again...).
KJV is based on Textus Receptus which is as bogus as a three-dollar bill. It's appeal comes from the fact that the Protestants had a hay day altering an already altered and thoroughly corrupt text.
I'm afraid sola fide is just fine with this. :) No one can truly believe unless he has already been baptized by the Holy Spirit. That is, in effect, the installation of faith, and so we believe. Sola Fide is secure. No one can "believe" without the Holy Spirit first acting, otherwise it is just "claiming" to believe. It isn't real.
Thus, Mark seems to suggest that faith is a requirement, but is not salvational without Baptism!
That's right! That IS what he's saying. He's just not talking about water baptism. :) A claimed faith without baptism of the Spirit is a false faith.
Mythological, given that Babylonias have an identical account for all practical purposes.
Can God kill children in wrath, but not in mercy?
Why would he kill them in wrath when the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these?
What about children that just die? Is God powerless to prevent it?
So, whoever dies is 'killed' by God?
So, whatcomes first, FK, faith or the Holy Spirit? Are you more likely to look up and say "There's God!" or does the Holy Spirit "jump" into you and then you say "I believe?"
Do you believe and ask the Holy spirit to come and dwell inside of you or does he just make Hismelf comfortable with or without invitation?
Why do I feel the Protestants believe the latter? No wonder you guys like Paul so much! :)
The Bible is what we have and the most sure way I know to be certain of the meaning is to study the KJV along with the Strong's Concordance to understand the Hebrew and Greek, unless you are gifted with those languages.
Those that don't, that just trust their teachers and don't hold their words up to align with God's, run the risk of what God warns us of in Jeremiah 7:
4. Trust ye not in lying words, saying, 'The temple of the Lord, The temple of the Lord, The temple of the Lord, are these.'
So...even with a Book that may hold some mistranslations it, to me, is far better than anything else at our disposal, including a "temple of the Lord". (His words, not mine).
This brings me back to where we started. How do you answer the questions I have posed. How does a faulty Bible hold a story, written in different times by different people with the same story carried forward - no mistakes, the same story. Explain the acrostic in Esther (and there are others). Tell me how Ps. 22 told of the crucifixion 1,000 years before the event? Explain what the scriptures mean that I gave you about the 3 ages and what really happened in the garden.
Some are calling them dark, heretical, etc. but no one has explained them. They won't just go away. They are written for a reason so tell me why our churches don't teach it. Calling it "dark" is unfair. It isn't dark because it hasn't been taught. To me, the teaching lets in the light and brings understanding.
If you will let go of talking about the church and telling me why the Bible can't be trusted maybe you, or others, will answer the questions.
.........Ping
But even with that as a ‘standard’ they cannot agree.
The whole idea of individuals being able to interpret Scripture is ludicrous based upon that alone, never mind that the Bible tells them that it is verboten. More evidence that our Bible-only friends are full of man-made traditions and, intentionally bereft of Christ’s institution upon Earth, cannot make the correct decisions, the correct interpretations or the correct doctrines.
Which is secondary evidence that it is true. The primary evidence that it is true is that Jesus Christ referred to it as a fact. Moses recorded it as a fact and the Babylonians apparently had a similar story (thus giving the story a secular source).
Why would he kill them in wrath when the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these?
So do all dead children go to heaven? If so, then Forest's contention that God sometimes kills off children in order to show mercy upon them would be true.
So, whoever dies is 'killed' by God?
If God does not want you to die, you are indestructible. Nobody dies in contradiction to God's will. God knows the number of your days. You will die at the appointed time.
The Bible can be trusted. Our private interpretation cannot. The Jews were given many prophecies.
And please remember that the KJV was a political translation. Google it up; I don’t expect you to believe me on that. I’d suggest that you might use the D-R or even the more accurate but more pedestrian NAB which is online at the USCCB website.
Does God determine all (predeterminism)? Or does He simply know (free will)?
Whilst I believe that God nudges people in the direction that they ought to go, it is still our free will in the end that determines our fate.
The Bible teaches us that God predetermines us to Heaven and it simply is up to us if we would go to Hell.
He ordains all.
Whilst I believe that God nudges people in the direction that they ought to go, it is still our free will in the end that determines our fate.
If it is up to YOUR free will, then you are destined for hell.
The Bible teaches us that God predetermines us to Heaven and it simply is up to us if we would go to Hell.
If that were true, then why would a loving God give us free will?
Now we are back to the idea that God has created a bunch of robots. If that is so, then why fight it? Why strive and struggle?
I can simply do as I want. If He wants me in Heaven (Biblical evidence), then I’ll get there and if he wants me in hell (no Biblical evidence) then I’ll go there as well. If nothing that my conscious mind can do to get me to heaven, then why do the right thing? If I’m predetermined to go to heaven and there’s nothing I can do about it, then what stops me from going out raping and killing when the whim strikes me?
If you follow every fleshly whim, then obviously you were NOT predestined to go to heaven.
Godly discipline and good works and wanting to serve the Lord is evidence of our election.
I think what perspicuity says is that not all scriptures were created equal. Some of them, like the ones that include basic salvational doctrine, are both clear and simple. A normal person could read those verses and come away with the basic understanding that Christ is God, and was incarnated to come to earth in order to die for our sins, etc.
Now, other scriptures are more difficult to understand, such as Peter's remarks about Paul. They are clear in that all the information is there, but they are not simple because they have to be correctly interpreted to understand the information. The classic example is eschatology.
Which obviously leads to the conclusion that any teachers need to be correct, or nearly correct. How do we know that they are?
Any interpretation, whether from a teacher or from someone's own reading, has to always pass scriptural muster. Of course, problems can easily arise when "new" interpretations are just derived from trusted old interpretations that may not have been correctly interpreted in the first place. That doesn't mean that the truth isn't clearly there (it is), it just means that it may be difficult to discern. For example, I thought about it one time, and I think that the vast majority of all my differences with Apostolic theology REALLY boil down to the interpretation of the very few verses that discuss "bind", "loose", and apostolic succession. We both might think those verses are clear (in opposite directions however :) but if they were simple, then Christianity would certainly have more unity today than it does.
“Mythological, given that Babylonias have an identical account for all practical purposes.”
Well then I guess we can say that the resurrection of Jesus was myth since long before the Gospels the Greeks had a resurrection story of the dying and rising of the god, Dionysus. The idea of a messiah, a divinely appointed king who restores the world to perfection is typical of Egyptian and Babylonian royal myths dating back to the Bronze Age so we can relagate the returning victorious Christ to the myth pile.
Let’s see, what’s left?
I try not to but there are times.... sorry.
Yup, see 2,626. That's all they have, so they use the Bible to provie the Bible, but it all defaults to "I believe this is so..." (personal opinion based on personal interpretation) and "God told me," (gnosticism) and, my favorrite, "I don't trust any man (read: except myself)." It's the ultimate narcissism.
That's why Luther says he can commit 300 adulteries a day, Chirst forgave him (if he is the elect). Like I said, with that mindset, it is no wonder we have a narcissistic violent society. If you believe you are the elect, no matter what you do you are forgiven already. It's a religion tailor-made to man's taste.
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.