Posted on 01/27/2008 7:56:14 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
It's irrelevant what I think of it; what's relevant is that you believe it is scripture. I am using your own source of authority.
For those of us who accept the Book of Revelation we recognize the symbolism and correspondence of the 12 judges and 12 tribes, but that does not translate into a view that Gentiles are shut out
Well, you be the judge
You and I have a fundamental difference on who "Israel" is, and what Jesus did
That's obvious, even though my view is based on what you consider infallible scripture.
You deny all (or most of) the verses in which Jesus talks about saving His elect. We have showed you many times
You have been shown the same, even right here and now, and you will come back and say "it's not true."
NO, that is CURRENT day Catechism. Before you even have a hint of getting to me, you must first rip through your Latin brethren
They believe that the Bible, interpreted correctly by the Church, reveals God's inerrant truth. They don't believe that the Bible itself is without human error. They will probably argue that the Catholic version (such as the NAB) is the closest to the true Bible (and I happen to agree with that).
Your side believes that the Bible, as bought in Barnes and Noble, is free from any error because God wouldn't allow any error to "creep in."
The Bible is full of revisions, additions and deletions; many of these are intentional. Many of these have profound theological consequences. Being inspired by God does not mean unable to err.
Our Latin brothers will also tell you that your side's reading of St. Paul is flawed, and their Eastern brothers will fully agree. +Paul is by no means "neglected" in the Apostolic Church. The Reformed Paul is.
Kosta: In the OT, the Spirit of God is equivalent to the Power of God.
FK: No, you appear to be attempting to depersonalize God. The Spirit of God is distinct.
Here Jesus uses the Spirit of God in the Old testament sense, as the power of God given to Him.
It is only later, as the whole Trinitarian revelation became clear to the Apostles, that the Holy Spirit is recognized as a divine Hypostasis, God Himself. "God is spirit" [John 4:24]
St. Paul, however, still clings to the Judaic notion of the Spirit being the power of God" when he says (and this is by no means the only example): "who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord." [Roma 1:4]
In all the earlier examples, one can substitute "the power of God" for the "Spirit."
This can be seen in many Old Testament verses, such as:
Here the Spirit is the "enabler" (the power) of ability, skill and knowledge.
"When Saul heard their words, the Spirit of God came upon him in power, and he burned with anger. He took a pair of oxen, cut them into pieces, and sent the pieces by messengers throughout Israel, proclaiming, "This is what will be done to the oxen of anyone who does not follow Saul and Samuel." Then the terror of the LORD fell on the people, and they turned out as one man." " [1 Sam 11:5-7]
But not all of the Old Testament God's powers (spirits) were good; some were "evil" [Heb: rah].
It is the Spirit who is the maker, the power that brings things into existence, into life.
So, no, I am not trying to depersonalize God, as you say. LOL! The Bible tells us that the Spirit is God's power, not God Himself. The concept of a separate Hypostasis of one God, the Holy Spirit, was not preached even in the early Gospels.
God as a concept in our imagination". I am speechless.
No doubt. It probably never occurred to you that we have to have a concept of God before we can believe in God. Something has to put the idea of God into our consciousness.
If we can't conceptualize somethng we cannot believe in it; or think about it. It is literally outside of our intellectual realm, intellectually invisible.
FK, I don't have to accuse Protestantism of heresy. That has been established long ago.
NOT CORRECT, not on this. We are talking about the identity of Christ. If you REALLY thought we were wrong on this, then you would have to right to question whether we were even Christians in the first place. YET, from your side, that only happens once in a while. So, I'm not sure what the actual belief is. If you say that we are wrong on who Christ IS, then you should also say that we are not Christians. This is why I made my above comment.
I will leave the "everything is a magical mystery" for another time, but pray tell what have you explained?
Normally, we offer scripture as proof. Some like it, some do not.
Your side offers rationalizations, trying at all cost to fit that which doesn't fit, by mashing it, ignoring it, denying it, cutting it out, and what not.
I didn't put it together, but as I found it, it all fits well enough together for me. (Praise be to God!) I think it actually takes proactive work to make it NOT fit. To me it is like saying to an atheist that he has more faith than I do to believe that there is NOT a God.
It was your side that decided that Jewish canon was "true" and Christian canon was false. How "inspired" is that?
It was very inspired. How can you call the Septuagint "Christian canon" (in opposition) when it was written before there were any Christians, as you would argue?
I am still waiting for specific proofs FK, and I am getting generalities dumped on me in response.
And I am still waiting for you to tell me, and I have asked, what you will accept as proof. When I go to a bar and order a beer, the bartender will ask me for an ID because I am so handsome and youthful looking. As proof that I am of age I show him my driver's license and he accepts that as proof. So far, you haven't told us what you need to see.
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.
NO, NO, NO! :) Scripture TOTALLY rejects what you are saying:
John 6:63 : The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.
Christ's words are infinitely more than "just words".
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 (according to Luke, John, Mark, etc., not according to God); the Jews offer Moses and the prophets; and the Muslims Mohammad. They all claim God "spoke" with them and guided them or told them what to write. That's your "proof?"
For the things we talk about? Yeah. That might sound pretty pathetic to you. But the Bible truly is part of my identity. It not only speaks TO me, it also speaks THROUGH me. And this is no boasting. I had nothing to do with it. I do not say ME versus YOU. God touches all believers. God's word IS spirit and it is LIFE! :)
And what did Christians have to offer in the beginning when the Bible wasn't completed yet, when not even Apostle Paul wrote a single line? What did they offer as "proof" then to "prove" their faith?
They had the POWER of God's word!!! :) What does that mean to you? Jesus said:
Matt 22:29 : Jesus replied, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.
Acts 1:8 : But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."
My opinion is that many Apostolics dismiss, perhaps accidentally, the "power of God's word" because it would seem to detract from the power of Apostolic men.
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?
Nothing is missing here, and you have not thwarted my proof. I offer scripture. We disagree on whether scripture is proof.
FK: "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?
Not at all. God gives us our understanding. The understanding God has given me is that the Bible is true. Has He given you a different understanding?
And I note that you say "the writings of one man". How do you determine that Paul is wrong, but the uninspired Fathers you like are right? That has always seemed very odd to me.
FK: "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.
Well, ......... YES. That's right. :) That is, within the context of God's perfection. Whatever God has ordained is as good as already done. The rest is mechanics.
Please provide biblical verses that spell out "God's plan."
God's plan is revealed in ALL verses between (but including) Genesis 1:1 and Revelation 22:21.
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!
WOW! You play the telephone game in your own head and get the predictable results. A total distortion from the starting point. Amazing. :)
FK: "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.
You cannot be serious. I am disappointed that you think I would fall for that.
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.
I have asked before, and I have not gotten an answer, and I will ask again: What did Jesus mean when He said:
Matt 16:17 : Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.
I would take what you have said as a disagreement with what Jesus said.
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.
And then from God's own mouth He blesses the catastrophic error that you profess. Jesus said that the Father revealed to Peter what Peter said. YOU SAY THAT WHAT PETER SAID WAS DEAD WRONG. How do you explain this?
You mean we believe the Bible is a testimony from God to us?
No, on many topics you have been given scriptural proofs from many posters, and you have rejected them
They were not convincing. Sorry. You have been given proofs by others and you rejected them.
Jesus WAS tempted, just as the Bible tells us and Paul explains. Most followers of Christ have learned that Christ fully understands all of our problems, and that He relates to us on a human level. The demonstration in the desert is evidence
The temptation of Jesus was a charade if He did not have the potential, in His human nature, to succumb just as it would be a charade if He, in His human nature, did not possess the free will to resist. He made the choice that Adam didn't. If He resisted because of His divine nature, then He was not fully human, and His temptation was a charade.
Than it's not your mind. That makes you a mindless robot. :)
No credit to me.
No argument there. :)
Do you believe that Job 1:1 has God telling us that Job was without sin?
No, the auhtor of Job is telling us that Job was "blameless" or "perfect." Since to you the book of Job is "inspired," it must be a true statement, regardless form which point of view; otherwise it's misleading.
"There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil." (Job 1:1 KJV)
I say that Job was a sinner just like the rest of us, and that only by God's grace was he able to remain faithful through his trials.
That can be said of all. A re you not "jusitified" by faith? Are you blameless, i.e. "perfect?"
The verse referred to how other men saw him, not to his standing before God
How can they know he is perfect and shunned evil? Whoi can say that for another human being, but God?
Yeah, and I suppose God wanted Mohammad to write the Quran.
WOW! I did a triple take on this one. :) I've been thinking about this response for a half an hour and I'm still not sure what to say. In your mind it is correct to compare the writing of the Bible with the writing of the Quran. I humbly pray that lurkers will see where both of us are coming from.
I do doubt that sometimes, especially when the Protestant/Baptist side speaks of Christ as subordinate to the Father, or when the Holy Spirit is "pushed" to the third place in a "hierarchical Trinity." There is the Monarchy of the Father in that He is the only One without the cause, and in the fact that He is not begotten, but this is not subordination or tiering of the Divine Hypostases.
Normally, we offer scripture as proof. Some like it, some do not.
Those who believe do not need proof. Those who believe do not believe because of the Bible. The Bible does not give anyone faith. So, offering the scripture as "proof" is either proving something you already believe, and therefore do not need proof, or trying to prove something to those who don't believe when they were not given faith. In either case it's not a matter of taste.
I didn't put it together, but as I found it, it all fits well enough together for me
If it is your personal religion, then I have to concur. The problem is the faith given to us is catholic and not personal.
I think it actually takes proactive work to make it NOT fit
No, discrepancies are quite obvious. The problem is reconciling them, which can be done within a historical, cultural and linguistic context of the time when the scriptures were written. In doping so, they lose some of their fairytalish qualities and become a window into the past.
To me it is like saying to an atheist that he has more faith than I do to believe that there is NOT a God
Atheism is the ultimate solipsism, self-love, self-centerdness, self-importance. It makes the personal "I" into the ultimate arbiter of everything and all; a self-made "god." It is a delusion.
That doesn't mean that some private interpretations of the Bible are any less of a delusion. Let's not forget that theological giants such as Origen and Tertullian succumbed to grave errors, and they knew the scriptures forwards and backwards.
The Septuagint was not thrown out because it was "Christian." The Septuagint was thrown out by the rabbis (c. 90 AD) because it was in Greek and contained deuterocanonical books not found in the Masoretic Text (aka "Hebrew Bible"). The Christian books (the Gospels, the Epistles) that existed by the end of the first century were also thrown out.
The Christian canon consisted of the Septuagint and the New Testament, along with all deuterocanonical books of either Testament. The Protestant side rejected the Septuagint and the OT deuterocanonicals, in effect saying the Christian canon was wrong for 1,500 years; the OT books quoted and referenced by the Apostles, that is.
When I go to a bar and order a beer, the bartender will ask me for an ID because I am so handsome and youthful looking. As proof that I am of age I show him my driver's license and he accepts that as proof. So far, you haven't told us what you need to see
Well, you seem to know what proof is. That's is encouraging. :)
Next time you go to the bar, just tell the bartender that you are of age, to trust you and believe you are speaking the truth from your heart and see how far that will get you in convincing him.
If he refuses, tell him that he doesn't have the eyes to see that you are handsome and youthful and don't look old enough to drink, and see if that will change his mind.
If that fails, go one step further and tell him that only the "elect" bartenders have the eyes to discern your true age and that they don't need any proof, because they have the eyes.
When that fails, show him a computer generated statement that reads: "To whom it may concern: this young man is of age. I certify it. Signed: God."
When you are thrown out of the bar (assuming your youthful looks really make you a lot younger than you are), try using the other technique. It seems to work a lot better and you seem to know it quite well. :)
He was addressing those who should have known the scriptures (I believe he was speaking to the Sadducees, a priestly class).
The early Christians had no NT. But even if they did, faith doe snot come from preaching but from God, doesn't it? So, the vast numbers that converted must have converted not because of the Bible, according yo our theology, but because God decided to give them faith. It was no one's doing, preaching or reading.
Again, preaching and knowing the scriptures does not give you faith; it simply reiterates what one already believes. It proves nothing!
The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.
That sounds wonderful, but doesn't explain. Spirit has been called many things. And so has life. In the ancient languages the spirit (breath) is the power that animates (gives life). What life? The life of a believer? If that is so, then the Bible gives faith! Are you saying that the Bible gives faith? If so, then the Bible is God. Are you saying that the Bible is God? It seems to me that yes you are!
My opinion is that many Apostolics dismiss, perhaps accidentally, the "power of God's word" because it would seem to detract from the power of Apostolic men
Paranoia will destory'ya. "Apostolic men" (as opposed to Apostolic women?) have no such ambitions. They live their lives imitating Christ.
Nothing is missing here, and you have not thwarted my proof. I offer scripture. We disagree on whether scripture is proof.
How can anything be a proof if it requires an a priori absolute belief that it is true?!? Now, I am pulling my hairs! :)
God gives us our understanding. The understanding God has given me is that the Bible is true. Has He given you a different understanding?
How do you know it was God? If the Bible is true, it is so whether we understand it or not. How do you "understand" that the Bible is true? Because you believe it is! Right? That's circular logic. It proves nothing. You are just getting more and more tangled up, FK. :)
And I note that you say "the writings of one man". How do you determine that Paul is wrong,
You prove my point. :) I didn't say +Paul is wrong. I said "some interpret the Bible (based mostly on the writings of one man, +Paul) that this is so..." In other words, their interpretation is possibly wrong, not necessarily +Paul!
So, Christ's death on the cross was just mechanics? You do realize if this continues I will be bold? :)
WOW! You play the telephone game in your own head and get the predictable results. A total distortion from the starting point. Amazing.
Are you now saying that the Reformed God didn't create evil and used it for His "plan?" I am confused.
I have asked before, and I have not gotten an answer, and I will ask again: What did Jesus mean when He said: Matt 16:17 : Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven
Sure you did (I did answer it). He told +Peter the truth: +Peter said Jesus was the Son of the Living God but not is the Cristian sense. No one worshipped or prayed to Jesus afterwords as God-Incarnate. But +Peter did say the truth without realizing it fully.
Well, in your Reformed theology is it not right to say that God wanted Judas to betray Christ? Was it not God who made Pontius Pilate? Was it not God's decision that Christ would be condmened. Or was it the Sanhedrin's doing? Has not everything been preordained from before the world even existed? Is it not God who planned it all? Who is really responsible here?
I think you should pause and wonder for a few hours about your own theological precepts and wonder what they really mean for lukers.
If God is in charge and we have no minds unless God makes one up for us, then the writing of John's Gospel is God-inspired just as the wiritng of Mohammad must be. He uses the good and the evil to accomplish His plan, isn't that what your theology teaches? This is not an endorsement of Mohammad's work any more than saying that Judas did his part in God's plan. Did either have a choice?
After all God gives us faith or lack of faith; God hardens our hearts or he doesn't. God saves some and God destroys others. It's all the Reformed God's doing.
We???
Us???
Only the Elect alone are justified by faith alone in Jesus Christ alone.
We mortals do tend to imagine and/or build boundaries or pens in all sorts of ways. Things we think we can do, things we think we cannot do. And so on.
And no doubt that tendency would carry over into our association with others. Some people raised in a certain belief - whether theology, ideology, philosophy or whatever - may imagine that to be their boundary.
Jesus Christ is both the Door and the Good Shepherd.
I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.
The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have [it] more abundantly.
I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep. - John 10:7-11
He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters. He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake. - Psalms 23:1-3
To God be the glory!
Yes.. its quite wonderful.. that you can be so free yet limited to freedom.. For he makes a door out of every situation unless we are to stay put.. because he is staying put.. Jesus metaphors all say much more than the sum of the words.. It is quite meta physical.. possibly even infra physical.. at the same time..
Praise God!!!
Is that a fact? Let's be serious, okay. By your logic, no one can be sanctified unless thoroughly tested.
I didn't give you any logic. I have never said or implied any such thing as you have suggested. Testing helps with sanctification, it doesn't define it.
FK: "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.
Your pattern is to define all reality into mystery, and then claim that your personal fantasy is plausible BECAUSE it is also mystery. I reject that approach.
FK: "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?
I re-read my own comment three times, and then I read your response three times. I'm still shaking my head. :) I cannot FATHOM what you would find offensive in what I said. Even if you don't agree to the micro-point, I KNOW I didn't say anything an Orthodox should recoil at the way you did.
Since you just signed up today I'm wondering if you've ever posted under a different name?
Thanks, Dr Eckleburg. Yes, I’m about as “newbie” as you can be (about 2 hours).
Just give me a couple of years, though.
As a former sheep dude who spent some time thinking and reading and talking about designing barns for health and clean wool production (before I realized that I could go broke almost as fast if I just hung around on FR - and I'd be warm, dry, and clean ...)
Where was I, oh yeah: Some pens can spread disease. Some combinations of bedding and ventilation can compromise the ovine lung (you need air to disperse the inevitable ammonia vapors.) And some penning helps ewes and lambs bond.
Then again, IHS says that He is the door through which the sheepies go in and out and find pasture.
Then yet again, one of the great sights of intensive management sheeping is when you open the lambing pen and a lamb comes out onto the grass for the first time (not counting when it was actually born.)
While it would be messed up for a ewe and her lambs to prefer their pen to the outdoors, still good barning and penning can provide safety, comfort, and health, all their lives.
But to abandon the metaphor, Leaving aside my (so to speak, deductive or a priori) disagreement with the Catholic (as distinct from ROMAN Catholic) Church being just one pen among many, I think that human type personnel need "societies" in which they can't necessarily always have their own way. And so we have the wonderfully self-contradictory phenomenon of "non-denominational" entities which form associations.
But to try to bring at least this minor point back home, you called Donatism a "pen". Since Donatism is kind of an ecclesiological heresy, I want to argue that it's an unhealthy pen, one which encourages the sheep to reject the grain if the guy who feeds it isn't sufficiently holy. A sheep could starve surrounded by good grain in such a pen.
***Now, on the one hand we have the perfectly good idea that men, or even bodies of men, will and do grow in faith. They are sanctified. On the other hand, we have “always and everywhere believed”. How do you reconcile these?***
Well, look at the theology of the Trinity. It was not rigidly defined for centuries until it was required in response to growing heresies. The inclusion of the Deuterocanonicals (or indeed the entire content of the OT) was not required until the heresy of the Reformation.
The growing of the faith was simply that - a growing. Not the innovations of the last five hundred years.
FK, you said that testing helps [sic] to sanctify us during our lives. You are making a relationship between testing and sanctification, a is a function of b. But you neither prove the existence, nor do you define the nature of this relationship. If there is no testing, does that mean there is no sanctification? If there is abundance of testing, does that mean there is abundance of sanctification?
Does that mean that the "unlucky" ones who are never tested, the happy-go-lucky folks, never get sanctified? You simply shoot from the hip, making extraordinary claims without providing extraordinary evidence/proof that your claims are valid.
You may very well believe what you say, but it is only your belief, not a fact. Facts require proof. If you said "I believe testing helps sanctify us during our lives" I would have simply accepted that as your personal belief.
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.