Posted on 01/27/2008 7:56:14 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
Wonderful reply and insights, BD. Love, Mxxx
***I freely admit that the idea of scripture being an afterthought of God is fully consistent with the treatment scripture is routinely given by Apostolics around here. :) I think I am pretty close to a decent understanding of what Apostolics really think of scripture, and how it fits within your paradigm of earthly authority.***
You may wish to further your understanding of how the Church viewed Scripture as it matured over the centuries, from wandering preachers largely teaching orally, to carrying various scraps of parchment around, to finally arranging it all in a book and deciding on its contents.
We have only one incident of Jesus actually writing anything mentioned in the Bible, and He wrote in the dust. Is that not of significance? The Bible does not have anyone writing anything that came to be in it during the life of Jesus. Is that not of significance?
***Ah, that is exactly why I like “God-breathed” better, because God IS perfect, and He gave us His word perfectly as He intended. ***
Scripture is not there for us to “like”. It is there for us to be instructed.
***I think the Apostolic view must be that the scriptures are fundamentally flawed because they contradict so many holdings of the Church, dogma and doctrine.***
The Apostolic view is that Scripture contains all the truths that God wanted us to know through the Bible. Scriptures do not contradict the Church of Jesus, since the Church of Jesus decided on the content of the Bible, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
***The only way for the men of the Church to be right is to bring down God and say that His word is flawed.***
While your translation of a translation of a translation may be flawed, the Bible contains God’s truth that He wishes us to know through the Bible. Jesus left us His Church - we do not know of anything written down during His lifetime that has made it into the Bible. Jesus left us His Church, commissioned at Pentecost by the Holy Spirit. No words, no parchments, no books.
When we even flirt with the idea that Christ could disobey God we deconstruct the Trinity into meaninglessness.
The Godhead is three persons in "one substance, power and eternity." That essence is the same and always in accord with itself and is eternally self-authenticating. God cannot contradict Himself. God is not divided against Himself.
"[God] cannot deny himself" -- 2 Timothy 2:13
"God...cannot lie." -- Titus 1:2"No lie is of the truth." -- John 2:21
WESTMINSTER CONFESSION OF FAITH: "In the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son."
HA!! I don't think so. :) Your Church is "officially" on the right side of many moral issues, but Catholics, at least in this country, are one of liberalism's best buddies. Your Church voted for pro-abortion Gore in 2000, and you helped to hand Congress over to the Democrats in 2006. And over the last 9 presidential elections, the record of the Church is just over 50-50 in voting for pro-aborts vs. pro-lifers. Even when Catholics supported Bush over Kerry, it was only by 5 points nationwide. No such statistics apply to evangelicals. If Catholics voted in accordance with what you say is Catholicism, there wouldn't be any liberals.
Rhode Island and Massachusetts are the two biggest Catholic states per capita in the country. Not only do pro-abortionists OWN those states, but Mass. is the state that passed the law recognizing the wonder and splendor of gay marriage. If I was a liberal I would immediately go after the Catholic vote because I would think I could get it. I wouldn't bother with the evangelicals. Here is an opinion piece from the New York Sun that lays out some facts:
Winning the Catholic Vote - By SETH GITELL
And let's not forget BD's point, the position of the Church is to side with liberalism and surrender in Iraq, letting the terrorists take over. Still further we can add that many Catholic Churches are acting as sanctuaries for illegal aliens. In the southwest, at least, the liberal Catholic position is for open borders. You really have no claim to fidelity to conservatism.
Yes, so far. President Bush gets lots of points for no further attacks, when we could have normally expected them under a liberal administration, such as we regularly saw under Clinton. If we elect a liberal I fully expect further attacks on our soil, and soon. The terrorists are crazy but they aren't stupid. They know better (now) than to mess with this President.
Do we have fewer or greater number of potential terrorists in the country as a result of unchecked southern borders? Aiding the terrorists could be done by not doing enough too, FK.
There are a greater number, which is why I find President Bush's stance on the issue paradoxical. However, so far he has guessed right and we have been safe. I still give him great credit.
It's just satire, FK...you seem to find it objectionable when I use HER method, yet you find apology in hers.
No, I was just pointing out what appeared to me to be hypocrisy. I love good satire, so use it all you want. But then don't complain when others do. :)
FK: "IOW, you know you strongly dislike her, but you have no idea why. Hey, that kind of sounds like the Orthodox approach to faith itself!"
No that would be more like being Reformed and just saying "I have no clue, it was given to me."
Not at all. I know WHY I believe. The personal, rational God has changed my heart to have a personal, rational faith. He related to me on a personal level so that I could relate back to Him on a personal level. PLUS, He ordained that it would happen infallibly. I had nothing to do with it. I don't think you can say any of this.
FK: "Of course believers are going to sin from time to time, but that mindset does not RULE us. God does."
God rules our sinful minds? God causes us to sin? Oh, wait, I forgot, we are just robots...of course...mind control...
It is regrettable that you have no idea at all what I am talking about.
And if anyone asks me that's what I'll tell him. :) I remember the writing you showed me, but I was still trying to be conservative and not paint with too broad a brush. :)
Very good response. Keep it up.
I am glad. I never said you didn't.
It’s alive and well, believe me
I do.
God directed me to this church and I’ve been here almost 25 years
You mean you believe God directed you to this church? If it is more than just you choose to believe, please provide proof that it was God.
I’ve experienced much growth here, grown closer to the Lord, found a wonderful husband who has been my dear caregiver, companion, lover, friend, at the church; found many friends who know and love the Lord and who have been great prayer warriors on my behalf and people I can turn to when I’m in need
We are all happy for you. What does all this "prove" except that your church, as you call it, is a great place for you.
Believe me, I’m where I’m supposed to be
That's how you may feel about it, but you have no proof that it is where you are supposed to be. Is it perhaps where you choose to be, given that's where you found your husband and lots of friends who care about you?
I don't see any evidence that God directed you there.
I don’t expect you ever will see it, kosta.
FK, I don't have to accuse Protestantism of heresy. That has been established long ago.
Your particular side is the "everything is a magical mystery" side, meaning you claim a universal pass by not being able to explain ANYTHING
I will leave the "everything is a magical mystery" for another time, but pray tell what have you explained? Your side offers rationalizations, trying at all cost to fit that which doesn't fit, by mashing it, ignoring it, de nying it, cutting it out, and what not. It was your side that decided that Jewish canon was "true" and Christian canon was false. How "inspired" is that? I am still waiting for specific proofs FK, and I am getting generalities dumped on me in response.
I am expected to accept a priori postulates which lack any proof, and my refusal is met with indignation and borderline insults. How dare I question the "facts" of "true" believers? This is rather pathetic, FK.
The NT tells us that Christ performed miracles and as a result of them many believed. Even Christ did not simply preach. Preaching is easy. Anyone can do whatever he or she wants with words. But they are just words.
That is a very fair and common misunderstanding by Apostolics who have not had the benefit of having the principles being explained in painstaking detail to them more than a dozen times!
Obviously, your "explanation" doesn't seem to carry much weight unless someone simply resigns himself to "official truth" and accepts everything that is dished out without a shred of any evidence that such "explanations" are based in fact.
However, given your view of the Bible, scripture arguments carry no weight with you
So, all you have is the Bible? That is your only "proof?" Every major religion has similar "proofs." The Bible you offer is written by men (accoridng to Luke, John, Mark, etc., not accoridng to God); the Jews offer Moses and the prophets; and the Muslims Mohammad. They all claim Gos "spoke" with them and guided them or told them what to write. That's your "proof?"
And what did Christians have to offer in the beginning when the Bible wasn't completed yet, when not even Apsotle Paul wrote a single line? What did they offer as "proof" then to "prove" their faith? And many actually died because of that faith, so it had to be pretty convincing! Imagine, all that without the Bible. And now 2,000 years later the Christians have no other proof that the Bible? Something is missing here. How can my not putting much weight on the Bible thwart your ability to prove this rock-solid faith of yours to me?
But I can assure you that I can convince anyone of gravity, which is itself a great mystery, by the way. No one has seen it. No one can package it. No one can dice it. But it's there because we have direct evidence of it; no bind faith and no a priori acceptance is required!
God predestines His elect from before the foundations of the world
No, FK, some interpret the Bible (based mostly on the writings of one man, +Paul) that this is so. This presupposes two things: one, the Bible must be true for this to be true. Again, you have no proof without the Bible and in order for the Bible to be a "proof" it must be accepted as absolutely true.
Rather naïve, don't you think?
The key difference here is that your God guarantees NOTHING
I know only that it is not in the animal nature to be merciful, and therefore believe that mercy is not of this world. That which is the source of mercy is by necessity merciful, and that is the only guarantee I see in it. Outside of that, I see no other guarantees.
By being merciful, we become like that which is the source of mercy, which is by necessity opposite of our animal instinct.
Kosta forced "love" no love; it is rape
FK: Then you believe that all Godly parents rape their young children
If they use force to get their children to "love" them, yes! If a parent chains a child in the basement until the child starts to "love" and "appreciate" the parents, it is not love, FK. No parent would use such methods our of "love." People who abuse their loved ones don't do it out of love. But then again a sadist and a masochist may make a "perfect" couple.
Again, though, these were all guaranteed. Given the surety of God's word, His personal guarantee, I see all of these as being part of one thing. Therefore, what happens within time DOES matter, but it is guaranteed by God.
That's a very long and roundabout way of saying that in the Reformed theology it is believed that those who were to be saved were saved long before Christ died for their sins, FK.
However, God allows lapses for His own reasons in accordance with His plan.
Please provide biblical verses that spell out "God's plan." You said in another post that God uses sin to accomplish his plan. In other words, sin is an essential part of God's so-called "plan." In other words, evil is a creature of God in the Reformed belief!
Peter said THE Son
"And all of you are (E)sons of the Most High" [Ps 82:6]
St. Peter simply repeated Hosea 1:10 "It will be said to them,"You are the sons of the living God" in the singular.
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God." [Mat 5:9]
And +Peter wasn't the only or the first: "And those who were in the boat worshiped Him, saying, "You are certainly )God's Son!" [Mat 14:33]
"I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ [Messiah], the Son of God." [Mat 26:63]
Here it is clear that the "son of God" is associated with the messiah, but being a Jewish messiah there is no implication of deity, so none of those biblical references imply any deity. The title "son of God"is not so uncommon in the entire Bible and it doesn't always mean what is implied in the Christian understanding of the word.
Well, then the Father really did NOT impart understanding, contradicting what Jesus said. Do you say that the Father revealed a deception to Peter? You literally have Jesus saying: "Blessed are you, Peter, for my Father has deceived you into thinking I am not who I really am."!!!
If +Peter knew what he was saying he would have said what +Thomas said "You are my Lord and my God." +Peter was calling Jesus a Messiah in the Jewish sense, in other words a human anointed of God who will be a warrior king responsible for restoring Israel's kingdom.
The key phrase here is - to the extent God desired - which is neither a claim that everything has been revealed nor that further revelation is disallowed.
Yes, that's why I chose those words. I know we disagree on whether God's word is sufficient for us, but if we agree that "God's word" is God's word, then that is a matter of stark disagreement with the Orthodox.
Jesus left us His Church - with the authority to carry on His work of bringing the Good News of Salvation to the entire world.
Yes, Jesus left us His Church. Unfortunately, some folks have seen fit to claim sole ownership of it as it was a means to consolidate power, imo. God's Church has all believers as members. The most powerful faction of it, though, slams the door in the face of other members. We are OK, though, since the Bible prepares us for the treatment we have received from your Church to this day.
If so be that we suffer with him, that we MAY be also glorified... If you don’t suffer with Him, then you may NOT be glorified together...
I have noticed that with Catholics every Biblical "may" is translated into "might". Obviously that is not the sole use of the word in the Bible, but I understand why it is needed to give man the most control and power. Nevertheless, then, you must think there are Christians who have not suffered for their faiths. I've never met one, nor have I ever heard of one. Have you? Do you believe the Bible teaches that some believers will lead care-free lives without ever being assaulted for their belief in the one True God. If you have never experienced this, then I would suggest that you do some thinking. :)
Remember the Judgment and those found to be unworthy based upon their deeds who are cast into the abyss created for the devil and all his minions.
Sure, sin results in eternal death. That's what the Bible says. Fortunately, God provides a way for His elect to escape that fate. We disagree on whether God could handle it Himself or whether He needed help.
Don't sell yourself short, the Magisterium has been doing it for nineteen centuries. :)
FK: ***You are adding your hierarchy to the scriptures where it is totally unsupported by text.***
Jesus created His Church - and that is fully indicated by Scripture.
I infer from the above that you think the Church has a license to declare that the Bible means whatever the men of the Church say it means. That's fine, but it does mean by definition that your Magisterium is greater (in your minds) than the scriptures themselves. Remember, for you the scriptures don't have anyone to defend them. Your men move in and declare. Of course, I already knew that this is the true position of the Church, but I've not heard it confirmed by a follower. I saw your statement as leading strongly in that direction.
Yeah, and I suppose God wanted Mohammad to write the Quran.
I know it is very important to you to believe that you have that level of power, that level of control. After all, you are a fully grown man and YOU make the decisions about your life. YOU say how things are going to be. You are the captain of your own ship and you will determine where she sails. I totally understand this and I know that the vast majority of humans also believe this way.
In your above you just told me that you believe that you have the power to undo what God has done, apart from God's wishes. I wonder if you have ever considered exactly what kind of power that actually is. Imagine it, you are saying that God said "x", you didn't like it, and YOU changed it to "y". I couldn't begin to comprehend the power it would take to do that, and yet you say you actually HAVE that power. This is a great difference between our faiths.
Is that a fact? Let's be serious, okay. By your logic, no one can be sanctified unless thoroughly tested.
As I'm sure you are aware, Christians have very different experiences while here on earth
I don't know. I have noting else to comapre it to. Do you?
God is active and involved
Oh, yes, of course, all over the place! There are at least several billion sightings of God every day. Please stop making unsubstantiated claims. Prove your statements. Imagine that you are first century Christian, without a bible in your hand, trying to convince an eastern barbarian that God is active to the point that this barbarian will be ready to be eaten by lions and be tested unto death for this faith!
He doesn't just sit back and "wait" (within time, plus nudging, plus chance) for the outcome of men's decisions, as the Apostolic position holds
Is that a fact too? Please show me, and when you do I will show you that I can walk through the walls and levitate...on pink unicorns from Jupiter.
Once a low level true faith is established by God (salvation), then sanctification begins and we move toward a higher level. This movement not only benefits us personally in our personal relationship with God, but it also makes us more useful to God to accomplish His plan for us as individuals. A fully saved person can and will always grow in Christ
Really, you don't say? And where is this all spelled out, or are you just making it up as you go along?
Now we come to the heart of the problem...
You imagine it is a sound argument that “convinces” someone to turn toward Christ. This is a wrong assumption. It is the Holy Spirit that works in an individual to turn him from death to life ever after. There is no “Convincing” as if a strong argument will change a person, There is no slogan, or good work, or positive thinking involved at all. If this were so, all it would take is a great campaign slogan and maybe give them a few dollars and they become believers. You would have as much success in a graveyard as you would anywhere else.
So Christ's humanity is part of the eternal Trinity? The man Jesus is part of Trinity? His humanity is co-eternal with divinity of the Trinue God? Is his humanity also homoousious, of one essence (divine), as that of the three divine Hypostases?
I think it is you who is deconstructing the Holy Trinity.
The Godhead is three persons in "one substance, power and eternity."
I repeat: Christ's humanity is not of ne essence with the the three Hypostases, but a separate essence proper only to the Son and not to the Father or the Spirit. It is also not co-eternal. There was a time when Jesus did not exist in human nature. Incarnation is an event that occurred in time.
That essence is the same and always in accord with itself and is eternally self-authenticating
Christ is not only of one essence with the Father. He is also human. But then Protestants may have their own "formula."
God cannot contradict Himself. God is not divided against Himself
Christ possessed both human will and human soul. He had all the potential for fall that we have, as is proper to human nature, or else he couldn't have been fully human. His humanity would have been only a pretense. That is a heresy.
If he had no potential for fall, then his resisting tempations is a charade.
The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son."
Aside from the heresy of double origin which I took the liberty to strike out, what's that got to do with Christ's humanity?
***Really, you don’t say? And where is this all spelled out, or are you just making it up as you go along?***
The Epistles... but then again, you don’t believe them, so what’s the use on arguing?
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.