Posted on 01/27/2008 7:56:14 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
She is back home and doing fine.
Thank you all for your prayers!
Then why do you need a Bible? Why did Christ send off his disciples saying "teach all nations and baptize...?"
Why not just let the Holy Spirit do all the work and convert those whom he will convert and dismiss those whom he will dismiss?
If this is all done by the HS, why all the preaching? Feel-good? Why all the convincing? Feel-good? If faith comes from God, then you don't count! So, leave it all in God's hands and be done.
You would have as much success in a graveyard as you would anywhere else
Please tell that to all the tele-evenagelists and missionaries.
So Paul defines Christianity? And what about those Christians before Paul's Epistles? And why argue if it is all the work of the HS? Those who are "listed" as saved from before all ages will have faith; those who are not won't. Why waste time preaching?
Then why do you need a Bible?
To know God more fully, to honor him, to worship in truth, because he wants me to, etc.
Why did Christ send off his disciples saying “teach all nations and baptize...?”
Because they are the good works we are supposed to do.
Why not just let the Holy Spirit do all the work and convert those whom he will convert and dismiss those whom he will dismiss?
He does do all the work, but he uses what he wants to get the work done.
If this is all done by the HS, why all the preaching?
To learn more about God, to learn of his wonderful works, etc.
If faith comes from God, then you don’t count!
Amen, I do not count. It is obvious MY arguments are falling on deaf ears even now.
So, leave it all in God’s hands and be done.
Whether I leave it there or not, it is ALL in God’s hands, and it always has been.
***So Paul defines Christianity?***
You asked where sanctification is spelled out in the Bible. I told you. Now you say that Paul defines Christianity? Where do you get such lunacy? How can you jump to so many conclusions without getting winded?
This is not proof, since the victims’ groups are nowing targeting the Southern Baptists, unless you are labeling the Baptists with also trusting the clergy without question.
It IS proof that the institution is very powerful over its laity. ....... I have no doubt that there are Southern Baptist preachers out there who are pedophiles. However, I am totally unaware of any allegations on an institutional level. If you have such information I would very much like to know about it. I doubt that you could though, since we are autonomous bodies. The larger crime of the recent scandal was that it was supported institutionally. That's why the payouts crossed the billion-dollar threshold.
FK: ***God promised that I need to confess my sins to one of your priests to have them forgiven? ***
Firstly, they are not my priests, they are God’s. Secondly, we have Jesus instructing the Apostles. John 20: [23, and other passages].
I did not know it was improper to refer to Catholic priests as having anything to do with specific laity. I am very happy to talk about MY pastor anytime. :) He was called by God to serve, and I know he would want me to refer to him as MY pastor.
I know you have a few verses that grant powers to the Apostles, but I don't see any from you that lay down the principle that the authority and power that was uniquely held by the Apostles was transferable. Sure, authority to lead and teach is commonly transferred by the wise to the next generation. That only makes sense, and all Christian faiths practice that. But your particular faith claims SO MUCH MORE. However it is NOT scriptural. It requires a faith in men to believe.
Mark: ***If free will didn’t matter, why did Jesus spend so much time telling us what to do?
FK: Sanctification and perseverance.**
Mark: I’m not sure what you’re saying here. If all we need comes to us from the indwelling Holy Spirit, then none of Scripture is worth anything, since the HS will inform the Reformed elect perfectly of anything that they need to know and there will be no mistake or translational error.
You are presuming mysticism when none is indicated. The Holy Spirit uses tools to give us what we need. The scriptures are a major tool that He uses. Since God has preserved the truth of the scriptures, despite additions attempted by certain Roman Catholic faiths, there is no worry that the Holy Spirit's leadings will be off. The scriptures are reliable and dependable for His actual children.
If one does not already have the Reformed Holy Spirit causing one to believe, then of what use is it to tell anyone of the Good News? It will only be a seed thrown onto rocky ground, right? God does not ‘plan’ anyway. He exists always and everywhen.
It is of use to reach a true elect if God has ordained it. There can be no doubt that God has used the as yet unsaved (or even the non-elect) to preach the word to the elect. That has simply happened, so it is of use. The efficaciousness of the seed is solely determined by God. It is not determined by man. While God certainly does not plan as He goes along, He DOES have a plan formed before the foundations that He is executing flawlessly as we experience time.
FK: ***Man does not have to have ULTIMATE controlling power to be responsible for his own sin.***
How can you be responsible for something that you have no power over?
Man has the full power to sin, and he exercises it. God allows that for the lost, and sometimes with the saved. Since God does not force anyone to sin, man is responsible.
Works don’t get you to heaven, but evil works without repentance get you to hell.
With all due respect, that is NOT the testimony of Apostolics on this thread. :) Perhaps you are parsing what "get you to heaven" means. What you all have told me is that a man must decide, using his own free will, to do enough good works so as to make himself acceptable to God. You will say that God will help you the whole way, but the ultimate decision to do the works (hopefully) sufficient to enter Heaven is up to the man himself.
Running around saying that you have the indwelling Spirit and therefore know better than any other man who doesn’t seems pretty arrogant to me, especially when no evidence is required other than one’s say so.
Well, I think that all believers know some things better than non-believers, and I hope you would agree with that. So, I don't understand your claim. I do run around and say that I have the indwelling Spirit. Don't you? As far as evidence is concerned, I understand that the truth of your claim of Apostolic succession is based on the say so of those who profess to have that power. The Bible certainly says nothing about it. Only the most tortured interpretation could find a case for it. So, I don't see your claims as being any more evidence-based than mine. I mean, you don't have to sell me that men who wanted power long ago claimed power in the name of the Lord. That is nothing new. It's not proof either.
Nobody gets to heaven with Jesus and the Grace of God. That is the whole idea of the Footprints poem. He helps, supports and sometimes carries us, but it’s us that has to walk there. God provides no limos.
That's amazing. The first time I heard that poem was long before I became a Reformer and I understood it then to relate to our utter dependence on God. IOW, the exact opposite of your interpretation. :)
Now, I fully agree with you that your Church's position is that no one gets to Heaven with Jesus and grace, but earlier in this same post you just said that "Works don’t get you to heaven". I challenged that on behalf of the view of your Church, so I would ask you for a clarification on what you think. If it's not works and it's not faith then what do you say it is?
Anthropomorphizing, aren't we? Answers.com says that: Dictionary: personality (pûr'sÉ™-năl'Ä-tÄ“) n., pl. -ties. The quality or condition of being a person. The totality of qualities and traits, as of character or behavior, that are peculiar to a specific person. The pattern of collective character, behavioral, temperamental, emotional, and mental traits of a person: Though their personalities differed, they got along as friends. Distinctive qualities of a person, especially those distinguishing personal characteristics that make one socially appealing: won the election more on personality than on capability. God isn't a person; Jesus was and had His own human personality. The Holy Spirit sure isn't a person.
No, we are not anthropomorphizing. We are recognizing that God is a personal being and He created us also as personal beings. If that is not true then you cannot relate to God on any meaningful level. He would be irrational and subject to random chance choices. It would indeed be irrational for us to follow such a being. Do you say, as a Catholic, that your own faith is wholly irrational?
The first two sentences of your dictionary definition are fine. The rest of it relates to humans and their failings. When you deny the personality of God you also deny the Catechism:
198 Our profession of faith begins with God, for God is the First and the Last,1 the beginning and the end of everything. The Credo begins with God the Father, for the Father is the first divine person of the Most Holy Trinity; our Creed begins with the creation of heaven and earth, for creation is the beginning and the foundation of all God's works. (emphasis added)
If the Catechism recognizes the FIRST Divine person, then it also recognizes that Holy Spirit is a person. That totally contradicts what you are saying.
That's fine. But you jumped in, out of context. FK and I were talking about proofs.
You said you can't convince anyone. It must be the HS. Fine. Then let the HS do the work. My point was that in the 1st century, the HS was convincing barbarians to believe to the point of death, being eaten by lions, without the New Testament in their hands. It's been a downward slide ever since. Now we need a bible to convince people to come to church once a week for an hour and make sure it doesn't interfere with sports.
[Why did Christ send off his disciples saying “teach all nations and baptize...?] Because they are the good works we are supposed to do
Oh, but all the work is done by the HS, not by us, your side says. Why would Christ put it in our hands when our preaching doesn't convince anyone? And these are not good works, they are requirements, commandments.
[why all the preaching?] To learn more about God, to learn of his wonderful works, etc
Well, that should be a private matter. Those who believe should and are expected to do so on their own, out of love for God, one would think, instead of waiting for someone to spoon-feed them the info. What kind of a love is that?
[So, leave it all in God’s hands and be done] Whether I leave it there or not, it is ALL in God’s hands, and it always has been
Oh, that sounds so grand! But God gave us freedom and ability to make decisions, and while he created man to be a rational and moral being, he also left it up to us to make that choice. There is no greater abrogation of man's moral responsibility than to say "it's all in God's hands!" ]
***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.***
Bibliolatry again? The Bible contains what God wanted to tell us through the Bible. To say that each and every word of the (insert version here) Bible is absolutely God’s word is crazy.
For instance, the NAB starts out with:
Gen 1:1
In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth
and finishes with:
Rev 22:21
The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all.
Exactly none of these words were even in existence when the first versions of the Bible were written down. How can anyone claim that these are the words of God exactly as dictated when these words didn’t even exist at the time.
We believe that the truths of God are contained in the Bible - well some of the versions anyway - we’ve had prior discussions over what constitutes a good and a bad translation, but that these are words according to men.
***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.***
That’s where the Protestant mindset is so obviously wrong. We don’t claim ownership over anything. We belong to God and are made in His image; we have not made Him in our own image, put Him on the hall stand and rub His head for luck when we walk by.
Believers? Believers in what? What level of heresy does one need to attain before one ceases to be regarded by God as a believer? As one goes from LCMS to ELCA to Methodist to UCC to UU, where is the dividing line? The Missouri Synod Lutherans are sometimes more Catholic than a lot of Catholics. Are they Christians? Sure. But how far away from the defined Church does one feel free to wander before one is not a believer in the Triune God of Christianity?
***We are OK, though, since the Bible prepares us for the treatment we have received from your Church to this day.***
How does it do that? By marinading overnight in the fridge? :)
Because, as you say, it is mentioned only in the Epistles. And what did the Christians teach before Paul came up with this term, before he wrote the Epistles?
Were they told they would be sanctified, and by whom were they told? The term does not appear in the Bible save for the Epistles, so no other Apostle, who actually knew Christ in Person, taught it or knew it for that matter.
Did the rest of the Apostles not teach sanctification? If not, and they don't mention it, then is it Paul's Christianity, and is it not then Paul defining Christianity alone in this particular case?
Does that mean the Apostles didn't know it yet or simply that the rest were ad odds with Paul?
How can you jump to so many conclusions without getting winded?
How can anyone be so gullible and not choke?
***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. ***
What Biblical scholarship do you bring that gainsays the Catholic translation, and the translation of the Church Fathers right back to the Apostles?
Either sin is of man or it is of God. If man is responsible for his sins, then he has to have some control over them. The Grace of God allows man, with his own free will, to determine whether he goes to hell or not.
God wants all to be saved; I understand that that passage has been excised from the Calvinist Bible, nevertheless, it does say that.
***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.***
Oooooh, stepping lightly around that landmine to Calvinist theology, aren’t we? The frogmarching Holy Spirit absolves every Calvinist elect of any responsibility for anything that he does. Kind of a theological teenage wet dream, isn’t it? No matter what I do - drinking underage, stealing cars and crashing them, smoking pot, skipping school, vandalizing and burgling - there’s always Big Daddy to pull our wretched backsides out of the fire.
That’s the allure of Calvinism - the ducking of personal responsibility.
***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.***
Scripture does not self-authenticate. It was written by the Church, ordered by the Church, the text was selected and the book was printed and disseminated. The interpretation of the Bible rests alone with the folks who wrote it and their successors.
Shakespeare wrote a body of works that everyone and his dog have attempted to understand. Therefore we have many thousands of understandings of his works, all or nearly all of which differ from what the author originally intended to convey. If Shakespeare had left a teaching institution specifically dedicated to teaching what he actually wrote, I submit that that body would be a lot closer than Joe Sixpack or Arnold Artsie coming up with his own understanding based upon whatever whim, mood or substance was in effect at the time.
***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.***
You may wish to pick up an unabridged version of the Bible and read what it actually says about men, their roles and their responsibilities. And the consequences.
***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.***
1 Tim 2:
3
This is good and pleasing to God our savior,
4
who wills everyone to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth.
Read ‘em and weep. Our understanding of Paul trumps the Reformed misunderstanding of Paul.
The Greek word hypostasis does not mean a "person." That is a western corruption. Perhaps "persona" is the closest but not identical and a literal translation substantia (substance) is completely missing the mark.
Calling God (Father, Holy Spirit) a "Person" is anthropomorphism, and in the west it is taken to the extreme, almost pagan level. In fact, among the Mormons it is it taken to mean three separate "Gods" united "in purpose."
We cannot relate to God on any meaningful level, except through Christ's humanity. That is the difference between Judaism Mohammedanism, Buddhism, Hinduism and any other pagan religion and Christianity. We relate to God through Man Jesus.
We don't have a choice vis a vis God's rationality, FK. The Creation is the way it is whether you like it or not. You learn to live with it. It's not a matter of reason. If an asteroid is bound to hit the earth, there is nothing whatsoever we can do about it to stop it. Reason does not rule the Creation. And if it is reason, it's not our reason.
For all this exists for a reason, which may or may not make sense to us. That doesn't make it invalid or valid. The only thing irrational is for the Reformed to try to stuff God into our limited rational box and make him fit our finite minds.
There is nothing rational about God as far as humans are concerned. Even the concept of God itself is irrational. Our minds do not comprehend eternal and limitless. We have to accept it on faith, not reason. We don't know why the Creation exists. WE cannot fathom the reason for galaxies and black holes, the necessity for the world to be the way it is.
***I have no doubt that there are Southern Baptist preachers out there who are pedophiles. However, I am totally unaware of any allegations on an institutional level. If you have such information I would very much like to know about it. I doubt that you could though, since we are autonomous bodies.***
That’s why they went after the Catholics first - it is a very centralized organization with deeper pockets. I am not aware of organized institutional abuse for the reasons that you state. But there is abuse at least at the levels of the Church and we shall see what the victims’ groups efforts will result in over the next few years.
*** did not know it was improper to refer to Catholic priests as having anything to do with specific laity. I am very happy to talk about MY pastor anytime. :) He was called by God to serve, and I know he would want me to refer to him as MY pastor. ***
That is why I sometimes refer to the Protestant view as backwards possessive. Protestants often refer to ‘my God’; Catholics belong to God. The building, the parish and the diocese we attend do not belong to us, in a theological sense. The Church is not ours; we belong to the Church. I think that this is very important philosophical distinction and one which highlights the separation between us theologically and which has given rise or rebirth of many noteworthy heresies.
***I know you have a few verses that grant powers to the Apostles, but I don’t see any from you that lay down the principle that the authority and power that was uniquely held by the Apostles was transferable.***
Really? So Paul was never consecrated by the Apostles? Stephen? Matthias? Fascinating Bible you have there, FK. You may wish to go online to: http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/ for an unabridged copy.
***The Holy Spirit uses tools to give us what we need. The scriptures are a major tool that He uses. Since God has preserved the truth of the scriptures, despite additions attempted by certain Roman Catholic faiths, there is no worry that the Holy Spirit’s leadings will be off. The scriptures are reliable and dependable for His actual children.***
I thought that the indwelling knowledge passed on by the Holy Spirit was enough. Are you saying that the Holy Spirit is insufficient to move mens’ hearts and souls and that the creation, production, dissemination and preaching of the Bible by men to other men is required for salvation? Ooooh, I think that we’re verging on a works based system with a very weak Holy Spirit. I don’t think that Calvin would approve, FK.
***It is of use to reach a true elect if God has ordained it. There can be no doubt that God has used the as yet unsaved (or even the non-elect) to preach the word to the elect. That has simply happened, so it is of use.***
Mechanical rote. Oh, can you name me an instance of the non elect to preach the word to the elect? How does that mechanism work anyway? Does the elect hear the Gospel (or Paul anyway) and then all of a sudden the Light of the Holy Spirit gets clicked on and all this indwelling knowledge, or some of it, or something, comes pouring into one’s soul, or brain, or kidneys?
***While God certainly does not plan as He goes along, He DOES have a plan formed before the foundations that He is executing flawlessly as we experience time.***
How does the Reformed explain the failure of Israel to accept Christ? Is that part of God’s flawless ‘plan’?
***Man has the full power to sin, and he exercises it. God allows that for the lost, and sometimes with the saved. Since God does not force anyone to sin, man is responsible.***
Tiptoing around that minefield again aren’t we? You guys claim that God has preordained everything and micromanages everything and is in full control. How then, do you claim that God does not force anyone to sin? If the Reformed un elect can do nothing but sin, and God created them to sin, then the Reformed God is responsible for their sins. QED.
***With all due respect, that is NOT the testimony of Apostolics on this thread. :) Perhaps you are parsing what “get you to heaven” means. What you all have told me is that a man must decide, using his own free will, to do enough good works so as to make himself acceptable to God. You will say that God will help you the whole way, but the ultimate decision to do the works (hopefully) sufficient to enter Heaven is up to the man himself.***
God wills that all men be saved. If they aren’t, it is because they will be Judged to be one of the goats and not one of the sheep. The Judgement is on deeds, you must admit, or does your Bible need even more pages restored?
***Now, I fully agree with you that your Church’s position is that no one gets to Heaven with Jesus and grace,***
Huh? The Church’s position is that without the Grace of God, nobody can possibly enter the Kingdom of Heaven. I hope that you’ve simply misstated yourself, or else little of our conversations over time seem to have mattered.
***earlier in this same post you just said that “Works don’t get you to heaven”. I challenged that on behalf of the view of your Church, so I would ask you for a clarification on what you think. If it’s not works and it’s not faith then what do you say it is?***
Who says that it is not faith? Faith is required. Baptism is required. Feeding the hungry is required. Clothing the naked is required. Repentence is required. Confession is required.
Where Scripture tells us that more than one thing is required, then all of them are required. That’s the problem with cherry picking verse - this one says this and doesn’t say that. But - these other verses say that. Therefore the Church incorporates both into the theology, where the Reformed will omit one.
***No, we are not anthropomorphizing. We are recognizing that God is a personal being***
God is not a personal being. He is God - the Creator of All. He’s not Joe Sixpack down the street dropping in for a beer and a chat when he’s relaxing after running the Universe for his shift. What’s next? 3 shifts of God running the Universe? The Father gets day shift, Jesus gets afternoons and the Holy Spirit takes midnights?
***If the Catechism recognizes the FIRST Divine person, then it also recognizes that Holy Spirit is a person. ***
I think that Kosta addressed this quite adequately - the term person in the Catechism’s context means persona - the appearance to us of something, or in this case, our interpretation of God.
The liberalism of the RCC is probably rooted in it's historic relation to the state and the underlying teaching that members should subordinate their understanding to that of the greater institution ie., the church. Liberalism always seeks to subordinate the individual in the name of the group. Conservatism seeks to free the individual and only have the state exercise it's power to protect those freedoms.
I'm not so sure. I think we will see a surge in activity throughout the middle east. Afghanistan will probably fall back into terrorist hands first. The big push then will be to destroy the stability in Pakistan and Iraq. Then the next big question will be can we have peace with the muslims if we withdraw our support for Israel.
The terrorists will probably be smart enough to recognize they are going to get everything they want if they leave us alone with a liberal Rat govt. in DC. We will retreat from trying to civilize the barbarians. We will withdraw from asserting our power and subordinate ourselves to global organizational approval, even if it's not in our national best interest.
A book I highly recommend is "America Alone" by Mark Steyn. It's an easy read, but very eye opening.
“Then the next big question will be can we have peace with the muslims if we withdraw our support for Israel.”
We’re already there. Bush and his supporters have financed and continue to finance the massacre of Christians by Mohammedans from the Adriatic to the Iran/Iraq border. George Bush has sent $500,000,000.00 to Fatah to buy the munitions to kill Jews. I find it hard to believe that either Hitlery or Obama could do much worse, though I suspect they’d be more open about what they were doing. McCain is an open supporter of Mohammedan terrorists and openly accepts money from them. The only difference between him and Bush is that McCain is also one of the main Washington bulwarks for the world’s remaining communist regimes. Once again, at least Mrs. Bill Clinton and Obama are open about their communist leanings.
My bet, wf, is that this country will either get straightened out “the hard way” or the only place for a true Christian to live will be somewhere in Eastern Europe or a “cleansed” Balkans.
FK: It IS proof that the institution is very powerful over its laity. ....... I have no doubt that there are Southern Baptist preachers out there who are pedophiles. However, I am totally unaware of any allegations on an institutional level.
One correction FK, it's not a problem with pedophiles. The children abused were not infants. They were typically post pubescent males. It was a problem with predatory homosexuals.
The Southern Baptists are less likely to be hurt as badly for several reasons. The clergy is not permeated by homosexuals. Our clergy marry and fewer homosexuals become members of our clergy. The other reason is our decentralized structure makes us a less target rich environment for the lawyers. It's awful hard to collect million dollar judgments from churches that only have a couple hundred thousand in assets.
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.