Posted on 01/27/2008 7:56:14 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
A proof might provide rationalism cause for psychological certainty, but that is discernibly different than faith and belief. Faith is a system of spiritual perception, just as our five bodily senses might be used in empirical thinking, or as logic might be used in rational thinking. Empiricism and rationalism are void, though, when it comes to providing what God provides to us in Faith.
The Bible is used to express the Word of God. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.
I don't doubt that you believe you do believe.
I question what you believe in though. Your Saviour doesn't seem to be the same Saviour that finished it all at Calvary. Your Saviour only got part of the job done. You have to commit to a lifetime of works in the hope that when you die you've done enough and been good enough to be saved.
My Saviour paid it all. I only have to believe and my Saviour will send the Holy Spirit to indwell me and guide me. My works are done from a desire to serve my Saviour. I don't expect them to buy anything.
John 6:47 Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life.
***We stand for true religon, the apostalic doctrine.
Standing upon false belief is no virtue.***
Can you show me that you stand for apostolic doctrine? Please pardon me if I am not getting your particular branch of Protestantism correct. A gentle reminder, if you would?
The very definition of Protestantism is a protest against the Church. That is defining one’s self by what they are NOT. Not by defining one’s self by what they are. That is why Luther went one way, Zwingli in several others, and Calvin in yet another. They did not define what they thought until they defined what they were not. Then they felt at ease to construct their own particular theologies and move into power.
Who, Josephus? LOL! Which of the four versions?
We have guards at the tomb who are not Christians and who could be severely punished for failing in their duty yet the tomb is empty
Where did that come from? The Bible.
We have hundreds of witnesses
Where did that come from?
The Bible.
The transformation of Paul
According to the Bible.
You see the pattern? the Bible authenticates itself. Some overwhelming evidence.
***The very definition of Protestantism is a protest against the Church. ***
That IS correct, but they didn’t protest against God. They were trying to get the church back to God.
***You see the pattern? the Bible authenticates itself. Some overwhelming evidence.***
It is overwhelming if you believe in it.
***That is why Luther went one way, Zwingli in several others, and Calvin in yet another.***
Not true. They were all united on the most important doctrine of the Church, the doctrine of Justification, by grace alone through faith alone because of Christ alone to the glory of God alone with Scripture as the final rule of faith alone.
Of course, I will have to take it on your word that this is indeed so, since you have absolutely zero proof that this is indeed so.
What effort is there to love those who love you? If I already believe it, I don't need it. Like I said, those who died in roman arenas probably couldn't quote a single verse, but they believed, and they proved their belief by dying for it. What proof do we have to show? A Bible?
***What effort is there to love those who love you?***
Not sure what you mean. We have a woman who comes to church every week, never misses. She is mentally deficient to the point of being anti-social. She cannot buy groceries, so my wife and I buy them every week for her. She cannot clean her apartment, so another lady comes and cleans for her. She cannot drife, so one of the deacons picks her up for church. She sits in the pew and never moves (unless she is about to interupt the worship with one thing or another) and all she does every day is sit and read her Bible and watch televangelists. Literally! She is disruptive, she smells, she shouts everything she says, people are afraid of her, and yet she is not only tolerated, but loved by the congregation. She doesn’t love us at all, but she does love God.
***Like I said, those who died in roman arenas probably couldn’t quote a single verse, but they believed, and they proved their belief by dying for it.***
You keep asking for proof, what proof do you have that THIS is true? How do you know they couldn’t quote a single verse? What proof do you have that they couldn’t? HHMMM?
Wow! One is carried by the angels and the other one is just buried. How telling. By the way, this is also thoroughly Jewish. Judaism taught that, upon death, everyone's soul goes to Shoel where the righteous abode in Abraham's bosom, in bliss, and the unrighteous were just there, unhappy. Our dear Luke did not believe in heaven, and being with the risen Christ—yet.
But, what's the moral of the story? It's Luke's typical "rich is evil" message. But, rich is evil if it is used for evil ends.
Any blessing we receive can be used for good, in God's name, or for evil ends. Luke seems to believe that wealth and lack of care and compassion go hand in hand, and he may well be right, but wealth itself has nothing to do with it. One can be poor and evil too.
But I still don't see the answer to my question? Pontius Pilate would have been interested to know how did the man he sent to his death came back to life! If I were Pilate, I would be seriously concerned for my health! Talk about an instant Pauline-style conversion!
Of course, none of the Sanhedrin were upset either. don't you think this would have been a newsworthy item even as a rumor? I do.
Of course, we learn that the Roman guards were paid off and obeyed instructions from Jewish elders and no one was alarmed. I seriously doubt Roman soldiers could have been summoned by Jewish elders or persuaded to follow their instructions. Its' a simplistic way to deflect the issue of questions and alarms going off if Christ's presence were noticed after the Resurrection. My words versus yours. That's all. It's no evidence at all. It does not answer the question.
One more thing, going back to rich man and the beggar. You quote
Think about it: what would be more persuasive to a human being? Of course, Luke is cleverly narrating this but there is no doubt that someone who rose from the dead would be more convincing to human psyche. Otherwise, why all the miracles?
According to the Gospels, Jesus received His following precisely because of the miracles and not by preaching Moses. If He didn't perform the miracles why would anyone have believed Him?
I was saying that it is overwhelming if you already believe in it; it's no feat.
As for the woman in your church, blessed are you all for your mercy and compassion.
I said "probably." What proof is required for that which is probable?
Not all could read, and books were scarce. What they heard read in church was the extent of their bible "reading." And what did they read if the Gospels were not written yet?
But does it matter if they could quote a verse or not? What matters is that they shewed their faith by dying for it. What have we to show?
Well, he is quoted as saying to His disciples to go into the world, teach and baptize...so His work is ongoing through the Church.
But where we differ is in atonement. Yours is the 11th century St. Anselm's innovation; Orthodoxy teaches the same atonement today as it did in the first century primitive Church and in the Undivided Church for 11 centuries: Christ paid for our sins, past, present and future only so that we can be free to come to Him, and be saved through a life of following in His footsteps. We have yet to be judged for our deeds.
I wonder what the RCC would think if we started to use the term “Sado-Catholicism,” considering the hair shirts and self-flaggelation and bleeding statues found within the Roman church?
Again, it seems like any disagreement with the belief structure of Rome is seen as a “rude” challenge. That kind of insecure self-defensiveness is inherent within a worldly, top-heavy structure that is authoritarian through men rather than libertarian through Christ.
= = =
Plenty of truth in your excellent points. Thx.
Of course, I still differ with my starkly Calvinist and hyperCalvinist bros & Sis’s.
I believe ALL the Scriptures on BOTH SIDES OF THE predestination issue will be fulfilled. I think folks who have a compulsion to shove the whole of the New Testament to one BLACK/WHITE side of such are missing out on the WHOLE COUNSEL OF SCRIPTURE.
And, I am keenly aware of the SINGLE Scripture about God creating even the wicked for His purposes.
GIVEN ALL THAT . . .
I firmly believe that we shall find in eternity that God slating folks like Judas for hell unalterably . . . was a rather rare thing. That there was some aspect of doggedly, persistently, tenaciously, repeatedly choosing rebellion, idolatry and the like vs choosing God that resulted in folks joining satan and his angels in the abode created for them.
I’m not the least bit interested in renewing the Armenian sp? Calvinist ‘debate.’
I just want to register a caution regarding the seeming over-quickness to assert that God creates lots of people unalterably for hell. Just doesn’t jive with my reading of Scripture nor my understanding of God’s nature.
We have the words of the Church Fathers all the way back to the Apostles
= = =
Given the rubber history books I’ve seen the RC edifice reps cite on such scores . . .
I’m more than exceedingly underwhelmed. Seems to me that LOTS of mangling of the historical facts is standard fare for the RC edifice.
Thankfully, God knows full-well what happened when
AND MORE
what He thinks and feels about each issue and each authentically historical event, moment.
My argument is that the Pope did, in fact, make a pronouncement from the Chair of Peter in the matter of paying for indulgences. 100+ years later another Pope rescinded that doctrine from the Chair. You can’t be infallible if your going to make mistakes.
= = =
Now, Harley, get a script or score card or SOMETHING and keep all these convoluted rubber history fantasies STRAIGHT!
You should know
that Pope A was for it before he was against it.
And that Pope B was against it before he was for it.
And that Pope C went askew on a tangent straddling the fence until he was quite sore in delicate areas.
And that Pope D acted like a pox on all their fantasies and created plenty of his own.
All this, of course, in an ivy encrusted edifice claiming to be a seamless consistent consensual whole with the doctrines and dogmas complete and perfect in what . . . 36AD?
I realize it’s hard to stifle the guffaws at such silly notions but we really must try harder. I mean, the guffaws will be counted and counted as sadistic when they reach above 0.000001 by count.
Of course the sadistic cheekiness in telling God He’s all wet and the magicsterical knows better how to do things is a whole ‘nother issue but . . . we know that fact is not going to get very far in any discussion with the RC edifice reps . . . so why bother.
Sigh.
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.