Posted on 01/27/2008 7:56:14 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
January 25, 2008
ESV Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
In recent days I have spent time in Lima and Sullana Peru and Mexico City and I have discovered that people by nature are the same. Man has a heart that is inclined to selfishness and idolatry. Sin abounds in the remotest parts of the land because the heart is desperately wicked. Thousands bow before statues of Mary and pray to her hoping for answers. I have seen these people stare hopelessly at Mary icons, Jesus icons, and a host of dead saints who will do nothing for them. I have talked with people who pray to the pope and say that they love him. I talked with one lady who said that she knew that Jesus was the Savior, but she loved the pope. Thousands bow before Santa Muerte (holy death angel) in hopes that she will do whatever they ask her. I have seen people bring money, burning cigarettes, beer, whiskey, chocolate, plants, and flowers to Santa Muerte in hopes of her answers. I have seen these people bowing on their knees on the concrete in the middle of public places to worship their idol. Millions of people come into the Basilica in Mexico City and pay their money, confess their sins, and stare hopelessly at relics in hope that their sins will be pardoned. In America countless thousands are chained to baseball games, football games, material possessions, and whatever else their heart of idols can produce to worship.
My heart has broken in these last weeks because the God of heaven is not honored as he ought to be honored. People worship the things that are created rather than worshiping the Creator. God has been gracious to all mankind and yet mankind has hardened their hearts against a loving God. God brings the rain on the just and unjust. God brings the beautiful sunrises and sunsets upon the just and unjust. God gives good gifts unto all and above all things he has given his Son that those who would believe in him would be saved. However, man has taken the good things of God and perverted them unto idols and turned their attention away from God. I get a feel for Jesus as he overlooked Jerusalem or Paul as he beseeched for God to save Israel. When you accept the reality of the truth of the glory of God is breaks your heart that people would turn away from the great and awesome God of heaven to serve lesser things. Moses was outraged by the golden calf, the prophets passionately preached against idolatry, Jesus was angered that the temple was changed in an idolatrous business, and Paul preached to the idolaters of Mars Hill by telling them of the unknown God.
I arrived back at home wondering how I should respond to all the idolatry that I have beheld in these last three weeks. I wondered how our church here in the states should respond to all of the idolatry in the world. What are the options? First, I suppose we could sit around and hope that people chose to get their life together and stop being idolaters. However, I do not know how that could ever happen apart from them hearing the truth. Second, I suppose we could spend a lifetime studying cultural issues and customs in hope that we could somehow learn to relate to the people of other countries. However, the bible is quite clear that all men are the same. Men are dead in sin, shaped in iniquity, and by nature are the enemies of God. Thirdly, we could pay other people or other agencies to go and do a work for us while we remain comfortably in the states. However, there is no way to insure that there will be doctrinal accuracy or integrity. If we only pay other people to take the gospel we will miss out on all of the benefits of being obedient to the mission of God. Lastly, we could seek where God would have us to do a lasting work and then invest our lives there for the glory of God. The gospel has the power to raise the dead in any culture and we must be willing to take the gospel wherever God would have us take it. It is for sure that our church cannot go to every country and reach every people group, so we must determine where God would have us work and seek to be obedient wherever that is.
It seems that some doors are opening in the Spanish speaking countries below us and perhaps God is beginning to reveal where we are to work. There are some options for work to be partnered with in Peru and there could be a couple of options in Mexico. The need is greater than I can express upon this paper for a biblical gospel to be proclaimed in Peru and Mexico. Oh, that God would glorify his great name in Peru and Mexico by using a small little church in a town that does not exist to proclaim his great gospel amongst a people who desperately need the truth.
I give thanks to the LORD for allowing me the privilege of going to these countries and broadening my horizons. The things that I have seen will be forever engraved upon my heart. I will long remember the pastors that I spent time with in Peru and I will never forget Adolfo who translated for me in Mexico. I will relish the time that I spent with Paul Washer and the others. When I think of church I will forever remember being on top of that mountain in Sullana at that church which had no electricity and no roof. I am convinced that heaven was looking down on that little church on top of that mountain and very few people on earth even know that it exist. Oh, God I pray that the things of this world will continue to grow dim and that God’s people will be caught up in his glorious presence.
Because of the truth: Pastor: J. Randall Easter II Timothy 2:19 "Our God is in heaven and does whatever He pleases."(Ps. 115:3) "He predestined us according to the good pleasure of His will."(Eph. 1:5) Those who have been saved have been saved for His glory and they are being made holy for this is the will of God. Are you being made holy? Spurgeon says, "If your religion does not make you holy it will damn you to hell."
The Bible tells us of many individuals who didn't know Scriptures to whom it was committed to love God. One doesn't need Scriptures to love God. It seems to me that in your mind the Bible is the source of faith and love for God. More bibliolatry.
What, are you going back to Genesis or something? You live after Christ was here. It is your job to know the scriptures. God commands that you love Him. Without a burning bush experience, how are you going to love Him if you do not know anything of Him. Can blind faith even cover that? Just love ................... whatever?
God is the source of faith and love for God, NOT man. The faith is revealed in the Bible, as is the HOW of how to love God. If, however, man is the starting point, then man makes these up as seems fitting to him. For example, if one didn't think that Scriptures were of use in loving God, then perhaps loving God could be accomplished by simply blindly doing good deeds, which would be premised on the ANTI-Biblical proposition that man was capable of doing them on his own. Man has created his own system that seems pleasing to him.
No one who knew the Scriptures recognized Christ from the Scriptures!
How can you say that, the righteous certainly DID. Jesus Himself said that the Scriptures testified about Him. Are you telling me NOBODY got it? That would be a blind assumption. The Scriptures don't back you up.
You cannot fully appreciate Christ without Mariology.
No doubt. Without a man, or in this case a woman, we cannot fully reach Christ. This would make perfect sense if the world started with man, as you said. No man comes to the Son but through another (wo)man. In the Apostolic world, this is the order of the universe. This view actually makes "co-Mediatrix" look weak. :)
And it's not my "job" to know the Bible. It is the job of those who were ordained to give that knowledge to others. Just as with the Ethiopian eunuch. And Christ makes that very clear when He says: "My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message" [John 17:20]
It's not sporting when you make it that easy. :) So, you are telling me, all in the same breath mind you, that it's not your job to know the scriptures, but it IS the job of your teachers to teach you the scriptures. Is that right? Therefore, if your teachers do a Godly job, then you will know the scriptures, but that is not your job, but you are to learn from your teachers, but your teachers should teach truth, but you should not know about, but................ :)
IOW, how can it be the job of your teachers to teach if it is not your job to learn? OOOOORRRRRRR, do your teachers not teach the Bible? If that's true, then you're off the hook, and none of you know the scriptures. :)
FK: One can be an Arminian and be a Bible-believing Christian easily, but all those others you listed are clearly NOT Bible-believing Christians.
Why, because their "bible" doesn't fit the man-made bible of Luther's?
No, I'm sure there are plenty who think the Bible I read is fine, but they are not Bible-believing Christians.
The Church established which books will be in the Bible and the Protestants rejected some and made their own. By your definition, none of the Protestants/Baptists could possibly be Bible-believing Christians since they don't use the Bible used by the original Church, which includes the so-called Apocryphal books and the Septuagint.
Your sect determined what books it wanted to use, even using horse-trading book for book, as if it was a commodities exchange or something. :) Bible believing Christians were not in power then and had no say. While your sect(s) claimed all power and authority, they did not speak for all of God's Church. You have said before that your branch of God's Church did not even accept Revelation until hundreds of years after the Latins declared it official Canon. This is even before the Schism, so which of God's Churches was right? This obviously proves there was not only one voice, and there were true believers, (and I add) including Reformers who lived in those early times, but did not succumb to the power structure set up by men.
In other words, it's all what man's definition you are willing to accept as "true," that determines who is "Bible-believing" and who is not.
Well sure. It's our term and we use it across denominational lines to refer to each other. I have found it to be highly accurate, and have little trouble recognizing another one.
If you deny the authority of the Church then anything goes.
If we deny the authority of the Church then we can start to grow in knowing the authority of God.
I have dealt with people who call themselves Bible-believing Christians but who also made up their own Bible. So, why should I treat these so-called Bible-believing Christians any different than the LDS?
Well, if you put the KJV on a par with the LDS bible, then I have no answer for you. It is very clear that you have no understanding of who Bible-believing Christians are. BUT THAT'S OK! :) We know who we are. :) That's all that matters since we use it to identify each other. The Mormons have their own Bible and that is fine for them, or something, but we know that it isn't the same type of Bible we are referring to for the purposes of the use of the term.
None of them uses the Bible put together by the original Church.
Again, so much emphasis on the Apocrypha that no one on your side quotes from. Why is that? In my personal FR experience, the statistic has now moved to less than 1% of responses to me including any proof offered from any book in the Apocrypha. Further, it's been over a year since I have griped about a proof offered that was Septuagint only. It just doesn't happen all that often. These are not world ending differences. They DO count, don't get me wrong, but I just find it curious that in all of the hundreds of subjects I have discussed, almost no one hauls out the Apocrypha or the Septuagint to make his or her point on that basis. I am fine with treating them the same way you guys do. :)
To be one as He and the Father are one is not really much of a wiggle room.
That depends on which one you eliminate to believe only in the preferred perception of the other one. :)
The faith was delivered once and left in the hands of the Apostles and those who followed in their footsteps to safeguard.
So those who followed men would be saved. No other conclusion is possible if the world started with men.
Dear Paul says a lot of things, but we know he wasn't there when it happened, so don't use him as a witness.
I see. So throw everything Paul wrote out that he didn't witness personally, even though Christ gave him EVERYTHING personally, by Paul's eyewitness. And also, we need to immediately throw out two Gospels, I think by your count, because they were not eyewitness accounts either. Hmmmm. I think this topic is getting to "that" certain stage. :)
Where was Mark when all this happened? Was he with Pilate? Or maybe with Peter who was neither by the Cross nor next to Pilate? You call this hearsay evidence? LOL!
So once again, throw it out if it isn't eyewitness, but somehow follow anything that claims to be eyewitness. But then eyewitness only counts in the Gospels. All other eyewitness testimony is to be thrown out because it's not in the Gospels. Am I up to speed?
Well, Christians also had an agenda and an image to defend. And there is no reason whatsoever to claim that every conspiracy must be discovered.
Yes, at the time those powerful, dedicated, devoted warriors for Christ were fully organized and plotting for a way to cover all this fraud about Jesus' death all up. There you go! :)
FK: Too many people saw Him resurrected with their own eyes and lived MANY years to testify about it, as Paul tells us.
The Gospels do not corroborate this. That is something coming from Paul who wasn't there and who was talking to Greeks who knew exactly nothing about the Jews or their religion, laws and customs, or what happened. Most of the people who preached Christ crucified never saw Christ crucified. They believed the stories they heard from others that He was crucified and that he rose on the third day.
So if Paul said it, and it's not in one of two Gospels (eyewitnesses) then we KNOW it's false. OK.
No, that's your interpretation. The sentence clearly says that those who believe and are baptized will be saved. Those who do not believe will be lost. Why would non-believers be baptized?
Hundreds if not thousands of non-believing Orthodox are baptized every single Sunday, as infants. That does not save. If they become true believers later on, THEN they are saved, regardless of the baptism. The verse is consistent with that.
FK: Belief is salvation, baptism is an obedience to God.
That's why the Church cries out for all those outside. They have convinced themselves that baptism is "obedience" to God and has no other meaning. Baptism is for the remission of sins and remission of sins necessary for salvation. You can believe all you want, without remission of sins you cannot be with God because sin is the unbridgable divide that separates us from Him.
Why can't an unbaptized adult convert just confess his sins to a priest and be OK? What sins does a water baptism cover that a confession and absolution cannot?
FK: Acts 1:5 : For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit."
What does that mean? Baptiso in Greek means to dunk. How does one "dunk" with the Holy Spirit?
It means to be fully enveloped by the Holy Spirit, as in a water immersion. THAT is the baptism that is needed for salvation. Without the grace that comes at that time, nothing else happens. Man cannot come to God on his own, or with only a little nudge. :) The heart must be changed through baptism of the spirit, i.e. regeneration.
Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!
***No one who knew the Scriptures recognized Christ from the Scriptures!***
FK: to bolster your argument... I would turn your attention to Luke 2:25-40.
Surely Simeon and Anna knew the scriptures, and were waiting for their fulfillment. They recognized Christ AS AN INFANT!!!!!!!!!!! They knew who he was and what he was BEFORE he did anything. Look at what Simeon said in verse 29: “Sovereign Lord, as you have promised...” How could they know what was promised UNLESS they knew scripture?
You live after Christ was here. It is your job to know the scriptures.
That's nonsense. Where does it say so in the Bible? Jesus says it to the Sadducees who were priests. I expect you to know the law because you are lawyer. And I expect doctors to know medicine because they are physicians. I also expect pilots to know how to fly a plane. By the same token, I expect priests to know the Bible. It's their job! It doesn't mean that everyone needs to know law, medicine or how to fly a plane, or for that matter to know the Bible. It is God and not the Bible that gives us faith. God did not distribute the Bible and command everyone to read it. There is no sola scriptura in the Scriptures!
God is the source of faith and love for God, NOT man. The faith is revealed in the Bible, as is the HOW of how to love God.
Let's get this issue straight once and for all, FK: either you believe in God before you read the Bible, which is why you recognize the truths in it, or the Bible gives you faith, and you come to believe in the Bible which becomes your "God."
The first is the a priori belief based on what you call "no basis." And, yes, those who believe woke up one day and realized that they believed. It is sudden and "real" to the believer; it is subjective, and it is a priori, and baseless. It is given (by grace); no words were necessary or exchanged. One believes the message of the Bible, then, because it speaks of God we recognize in our hearts.
If, on the other hand, you "learn" your faith reading fantastic stories of a Zeus-like God that read like Iliad, or the Epic of Gilgamesh or Hammurabi's Laws, and you become convinced by them that these are true God's words, then it is the (words in the) Bible that gave you faith and therefore it is the Bible that is "God," or God's literal word, as your side calls it. And by this approach, of course, it has to be God who wrote the Bible. There can be no other source of faith. Hence, sola scriptura becomes the only "base," and bibliolatry is established.
Your sect [sic] determined what books it wanted to use, even using horse-trading book for book, as if it was a commodities exchange or something.
Well, you are using the same "horse-traded" books (Hebrews and Revelation) which, according to you, men of "my sect" put together and called it the Christian canon. Your sect, which in this case is a proper term, rejects the books that the Apostles used, namely the Septuagint, and made up its own truncated, non-Apostolic "Bible."
While your sect(s) claimed all power and authority, they did not speak for all of God's Church
No they did not, because heresy was born on the Pentecost alongside the Church, and, just like the evil behind the heresy, it persists to this day, and deceptively appeals to so many men and women.
You have said before that your branch of God's Church did not even accept Revelation until hundreds of years after the Latins declared it official Canon
Where have you been all these years, FK? The Latin North African Council of Carthage was a local Council. It was never binding to the whole Church. The first "Ecumenical" Council that canonized the Bible was at Trent, and the Orthodox weren't there!
Kosta: In other words, it's all what man's definition you are willing to accept as "true," that determines who is "Bible-believing" and who is not.
FK: Well sure. It's our term and we use it across denominational lines to refer to each other. I have found it to be highly accurate, and have little trouble recognizing another one.
Your logic escapes me, FK. Read what you wrote: "I have found it highly accurate...." In other words, it passed your test, so it must be true! It's twu, it's twu...LOL!
If we deny the authority of the Church then we can start to grow in knowing the authority of God
Based on what? Your private interpretation of the Bible?
Again, so much emphasis on the Apocrypha that no one on your side quotes from.
First of all, let's understand that when we speak of "Apocrypha" it is a term coined by Luther which does not reflect what our Biblical canon contains. I use the term because the Protestants/Baptists are familiar with it. The proper term is Old Testament deterocanonical books, meaning secondary canon, but they are canon! And they were canon to Hellenized Jews, as well as Greek and Latin converts. Even the first edition of KJV contained deterocanonical books before the Protestant Apocrypha Police got involved.
Christianity was received by Hellenized Jews and the New Testament books are written overwhelmingly using Septuagint sources. It was the OT of the Apostles, and part of the Septuagint canon are the deterocanonicals. They are essential in shedding light on the last 3 centuries of Judaic religious metamorphosis before the appearance of Christ. They also have a great deal to do with what the apocalyptic Judaism believed as far as immortality, resurrection and other escathologcial concepts incorporated into Christianity are con concerned.
By rejecting the OT of the Apostles (Setuagint), who never questioned its canon, the Protestants decided by their human authority to accept the Christ-hating Jamnia formula calling in essence all the non-Pharisaical Jews non-Jews! That would include the diaspra in Asia Minor and Alexandria and the Essense in Israel proper. Thus, by authority vested in himself by himself, Luther what was genuine and what was not. As to deterocanoncial not being quoted directly in the NT, specifically they are bot, but then not everything Christ taught is in the Bible, and not everything that is canonical was quoted in the NT (Jude quoting from i.e. the popular Book of Enoch, which is not even deuterocanonical).
It's not all we have ! There are only scraps as Kosta pointed out before.
What else do you have that is the "written revelation of God", equal with scriptures? BTW, is it the Catholic position that the Bible constitutes "scraps", or am I misunderstanding?
You base what you say upon written witnesses of Catholic/Orthodox people who tell you their interpretations of what they thought were originals and who the Catholic's /Orthodox believe was guided by the Holy Spirit. Every one of them believed Jesus was truly present -Body ,Blood,Soul and Divinity in the Eucharist.
I'm sure the men you follow did practice the Eucharist as you say. However, as Kosta also pointed out, many of them wrote things that were not in keeping with the faith. Whole groups of Jews had things completely wrong in the OT, so IF the fact was that the theology of the Eucharist was wrong, then there would be Biblical precedent for a vast majority of people getting it wrong at the same time.
Either your belief is satanic or the one's who gave you Bible canon are satanic.
Well, you can call my beliefs satanic all you want, but I have no need to go there. Besides, I got my Bible canon from God, since it was His revelation to us, not the revelation of men ABOUT God. If you insist that your hierarchy gave us the Bible, then it cannot be "God's Holy word", since you deny God is the giver. It would have to be "man's (something) word". I think I'll stick with Holy, from God. :)
Good post, FK. Thank you.
***Besides, I got my Bible canon from God, since it was His revelation to us, not the revelation of men ABOUT God.***
Can you describe the process that God specifically gave the Bible canon to you personally?
Do you have photos or audio recordings?
You have your “own” revelation about God and it does not line up with the martyrs and the saints, whom without them you would not even have Bible canon.
,
Before and after the Bible they believed the Eucharist was truly Christ present
The Eucharist is greater than the scriptures because Christ is fully present in bodily form under the presence of humble bread and wine.
Try spending some time in Eucharist Adoration,FK
All are welcome to attend.
Go to the local Catholic Diocese website in your area and you should be able to find what Churches offer Adoration.
I assure you that it will be worthwhile to spend this time with our Blessed Lord
I pray you take up this offer ,Dear Brother.
I wish you a Blessed Evening!
Excuse me, isn't God Spirit that is ever-present everywhere and always? Isn't the whole world immersed in God's presence?
This is not to suggest a physical sensation or some type of emotional experience ..., but the regeneration of the human spirit is sometimes associated with other phenomenon in some believers coincident to that salvation
What does that have to do with being immersed?
FK: I think it means that Christ came to set His people apart from the wickedness of the world
Huh?!? Christ came to give hope to the whole world, not only "His" people. God is not partial. That still doesn't explain why divide a son form his father. That makes no sense.
A true believer will be despised by the world. And even those in his own family who are of the world will hate him
The Muslims would love this. I think they could see themselves as "true believers" by this formula.
It is better to be hated than concede the true faith to make peace
Oh boy! That sounds positively jihadist!
No, Matthew did not lie by making up a quote from Jesus. Jesus DID say it because He knew His listeners understood the principles of how a crucifixion worked
No one associated Crucifixion with suffering for the world. Crucixiction became a synonym for suffering, and Christ's sacrifice, we are to imitate after the fact. The verse in question was before the fact.
To carry one's own cross to his death was burdensome, and so the teaching was that we all must bear our own burdens in faith. Isn't that easier to believe than "Matthew lied"?
People didn't carry their crosses (weighs over 300 lbs), but maybe crossbars. And no one at that time associated being crucified a punishment for faith. Crucifixion was reserved for hardened criminals.
Heavenly rewards, yes. Salvation, no.
What are heavenly rewards, FK? Penthouse condos in the clouds with a view? :)
Your heavenly reward is being saved. Your punishment is being lost.
Have you ever jumped into a pool of water such that you are completely immersed? The sensation of our thinking through faith in Christ with that immersion is somewhat akin the the sensation of being immersed in water. Not identical to it, but a similarity to communicate how the worldly and fleshly impacts upon our thinking no longer take priority as when we remain in fellowship with Him.
Off the top of my head there are 7 different types of baptism used in Scripture. The baptism of the Holy Spirit is the regeneration of the human spirit, the initial instant of our receiving eternal life.
In this Church Age, each and every individual believer is a priest to the Father through our High Priest, the Lord and Savior Christ Jesus, the Head of the Church.
God, by His Will has a Plan for every believer and has predestined the logistics for that Plan. We don't understand what He wants us to do until we understand His Will and that is reveals to us in Scripture. By studying Scripture through faith in Him, He is able to first hand grow our understanding of Him, His Will, and how we are to work to be when He wants us and perform per His Will.
While we remain in fellowship with Him, we find ourselves in the right place, at the right time, to perform good works through His Will, by His methods, as good stewards of what He has provided us. Our placement isn't always by worldly criteria, and some have argued God enjoys using those with little to no worldly power to implement His victories in the angelic conflict.
In order to understand what His Plan is for us, we must first understand what He reveals to us and mature in that understanding, knowledge, and wisdom. That only comes by faith, which is matured as Bible doctrine in our thinking and continually residing in it for further sanctification of our thinking by Him.
Sola Scriptura as a policy is a safe place to begin. By means through faith in Him, if you have advance beyond Bible doctrine, already know and abide by all things within Scripture, are able to resist temptation and continue with an even more fruitful life, then I think it is wonderful that God reveals Himself to you even more than what He has already provided in Scripture. For myself, I continue to grow in Him through faith in Christ and by the Word of God which He provides to us in Scripture so I may continue to abide in Him with something veritable. Until He has built me beyond that point, I know He has provided Scripture for me to use to unserstand His Word and grow in Him, so Sola Scriptura for myself is a veritable beginning.
There are also some doctrinal arguments regarding cessationism which indicate nobody receives special revelation after the completion of the canon of Scripture, so if somebody thinks they have Mastered Scripture and now advance to other revelation, it might be the case that they never understood Scripture in their human spirit as they might think they have in their soul.
If you are referring to Acts 17:11 re: Bearean Jews, that's a joke. What Scriptures did they consult? I would imagine the Septuagint, because they were Hellenized Jews. They were checking to see if Paul was quoting from it.
Since he spoke in the synagogue, the Berean rabbis naturally checked to see if his words were correct, and even then not all of them believed him.
Why? Because Paul quotes from all over the place, takes a little from here and a little from there, and makes up his own prophesy. It's sad to say this, but it is glaringly obvious by checkered makeup of his statements.
Take for instance 1 Cor 15:4 "and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures." The part "raised on the third day" is from Matthew (16:21), Acts (2:31) and John (2:20). But Matthew, Acts and especially John were not written at the time Paul wrote this Epistle to the Corinthians!!! Hello, earth, we have a problem, bleep.
Kosta: What about those who “believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away” (Luke 8:13)? According to you they never believed...but Christ is quoted as saying otherwise.
FK: If you read Christ that way, you have Him saying that there can be true faith with no root.
Hey, FK, this is not some kind of a mumbo-jumbo puzzle made up of various OT/NT quotes, but a straight sentence, and presented as something Jesus actually said. If you have a problem with what it says, then examine your conscience, but from what you say it seems that you are expressing doubt that the verse is true because it clashes with your beliefs.
The verse is clear: it says that there are those who believe for a while and you are saying that they never believed. It's not about a root, but about losing faith and falling away, because nöetic beings can choose. No one is compelled to love God.
Does that sound like something Christ would teach?
The verse says we can believe for a while and then fall away by temptation. As regards works-based salvation, yes the Gospels have Christ teaching works-based salvation all over the place. What else could He preach, being an observant Jew, and preaching to the Jews?!?
Correct. And that's what the Church practiced before the NT was written. For the life of the Church precedes the NT.
FK: But the majority of my arguments are based directly on scripture, which I don't think you accept as objective
No I don't, because the only thing that is objective about the Bible is that it is a book. Its spiritual veracity is not objective.
I presume you want me to use SOLELY non-Christian sources to prove the truth of my Christian arguments.
No, I want you to stop saying: "it's true because it's in the Bible." That is not an objective argument.
If in your view you put Andrea Yates and Joshua in the same boat, then I don't think there is anything I can do to overcome that
You mean, in that they murdered because (allegedly) a loving God told them so? Yeah, I do put that on the same level of insanity.
It would seem you would declare Joshua as just some psycho who made up a mandate and went on a rampage
No, Joshua is simply a good Jew who defended Jewish interests in that part of the world and believed that God was telling him to massacre people for the good of Israel. Sounds positively jihadist to me. But it is as far from Christ as it can be.
Kosta: Maybe one day you will realize that the world starts with us and that what is true to us is not necessarily the objective truth.
FK: And that is the HEART of Renaissance thinking
Goodness, without the Renaissance we wouldn't be having this discussion! Let's not forget that the Protestant Reformation was born in the middle of it and that without the renaissance the whole Lutheran movement would have been impossible.
It is because of the Rainaissance that we can all read and write, that we have human rights, that we have representative democracy and printed books.
The world starts with man.
The world as we know it (this planet earth) was given to us according to our faith. Your eyes and ears and your senses detect the world and interpret it. Of course it "starts" from us; where else can we begin to see and hear from? And what we see and hear and feel affects what we think and believe.
And it was because of this thinking that they were never able to find unity between God and man
Mankind never claimed to have all the answers. It admitted in the early 20th century that it can never know the atom as it really is, so there is the profound mystery of the Creation.
Our mind simply cannot comprehend beyond a certain point. Finding unity with God would mean we have resolved the mystery of Creation. All we can say is that something (we call God) caused all this to exist (directly or indirectly), but we have no way of knowing that Cause as it really is, except (we believe) through, and in, Christ's humanity.
There is no way to do it if man is the starting point
No Renaissance man will ever say that mankind created the world.
Man wasn't around at the start so he cannot possibly know about it from himself.
What we know is that all this exists. How some things evolves or resulted is revealed by various methods discovered by mankind, by connecting the dots. It doesn't really explain the ultimate Cause, but only the secondary ones. No one ever claimed to know how it all began.
We can either offer a biblical hypothesis or a scientific one, but they all pretty much come to the same conclusion: ex nihilo, from nothing!
Logic tells us that before there was something, there was nothing (but our logic is not necessarily universal!). Science stops at that point, but we (beievers) don't. We say God "existed" before existence but we have no explanation for it. Our belief is not objective reality.
Kosta: That's not what Jesus taught, however.
FK: Yes, it certainly WAS. Jesus did not teach in the NT that we should go out and massacre at will, but He DID teach that we should always obey Him
In love and not in massacres.
The OT massacres (carried out righteously by humans) were always IN OBEDIENCE to God according to the scriptures
Sounds like something straight out of the Koran.
Therefore, they were implicitly following Christ's commands. In fact, many believe as I do that many/all of those OT commands were coming from Christ in the first place.
Only if you are making Christ into the OT God and not the OT God into Christ. The living, walking Christ never commanded anything like that. In fact, His "pacifist" approach offended so many because they expected an OT warrior-king and not this Man preaching love for your enemies. There is no Christ in "righteous" massacres. There is no love of God in them.
God hasn't asked of me anything like leading a nation of millions out of slavery. He hasn't asked me to kill my son or massacre an entire city. The communications I receive from the Holy Spirit just haven't been anything like that............ YET. :)
Hope your sword is sharp and your slings loaded. For the rest if us from the Apostolic side, we will fervently pray for the everyone's souls and hope that God will remember us in His Kingdom.
Irish: FK, to bolster your argument... I would turn your attention to Luke 2:25-40. .......... Look at what Simeon said in verse 29: “Sovereign Lord, as you have promised...” How could they know what was promised UNLESS they knew scripture?
Absolutely right, there is no way around it. Excellent find and thanks for pointing that out! :)
FK: I see. So throw everything Paul wrote out that he didn't witness personally, even though Christ gave him EVERYTHING personally, by Paul's eyewitness
I guess if Paul says it it must be true. Talk about placing your faith in a man!
And also, we need to immediately throw out two Gospels, I think by your count, because they were not eyewitness accounts either. Hmmmm. I think this topic is getting to "that" certain stage. :)
No, Mark and Luke were using eyewitness accounts , and Mark in particular was getting his information from Peter, so it's not the same as with Paul. Mark and Luke give accounts of witnesses, like Josephus does, but Paul is his own witness.
Kosta: Where was Mark when all this happened? Was he with Pilate? Or maybe with Peter who was neither by the Cross nor next to Pilate? You call this hearsay evidence? LOL!
So once again, throw it out if it isn't eyewitness, but somehow follow anything that claims to be eyewitness
We have to assume it is hearsay. How else can we account for the exact quotes of what Pontius Pilate allegedly said? One way is to say "God told Mark (or Luke, etc.)" or we can go by the objective evidence of historical writing habits of the time and conclude that they are made up by the author, as was the practice. The additional problem with the first possibility is that there is no explanation why the accounts given to the authors by God would differ as much as they differ among them.
Clearly the quotes are not exact quotes of what was said, but made up by whoever wrote them. I know this is shocking to you as it was to me, but there is no denying it.
All you have to do is compare the "exact" quotes among the four and you. This can only mean one thing, no less shocking, and that is that so much of what we take for granted even the "red letter" verses were made up by the authors as to what they believed was said. So, why would I believe Paul?
Yeah, we have reached "that" level, FK. Now let's decide if we stop here and buy our heads in the sand or forge on. Your call. :) Again, you are missing the point: it's the message, the lesson that we read in the Gospels, in particular, and the Bible in general where it is Chirst-like, that is our guide, and not objective truth of the story.
FK: Yes, at the time those powerful, dedicated, devoted warriors for Christ were fully organized and plotting for a way to cover all this fraud about Jesus' death all up. There you go! :)
We don't know that for sure. But we don't know a lot of things otherwise assumed or presented as "facts" either.
Kosta: No, that's your interpretation. The sentence clearly says that those who believe and are baptized will be saved. Those who do not believe will be lost. Why would non-believers be baptized?
FK: Hundreds if not thousands of non-believing Orthodox are baptized every single Sunday, as infants. That does not save. If they become true believers later on, THEN they are saved, regardless of the baptism. The verse is consistent with that.
You are missing the point. Baptism is for the forgiveness of sins (the Creed: "I profess one Baptism for the remission of sins."). If there is any sin in us (original or not) it is removed by Baptism. At that point, the soul can ascend to heaven for the departed has no sin, and is no longer separated from God. In the case of children, the Church was never told what happens to the unbaptized, so we baptize them knowing they are free of any sin until they can assume responsibility for their transgressions (age of reason).
Obviously, with adults it is a different story. All believers are baptized ("washed") before they enter the Church clean, hence those who believe and are baptized will be saved. Obviously it is not enough to just believe. But if you reject God, it makes no difference if you are baptized or not because you will not repent.
Would you say that only those who are baptized can repent?
Why can't an unbaptized adult convert just confess his sins to a priest and be OK? What sins does a water baptism cover that a confession and absolution cannot?
Original/ancestral. Not because we are somehow "guilty" of Adam's transgression, but because we inherited the consequence of his transgression (propensity to sin). You could say our "addiction" to sin, concupiscence, etc.
What does that mean? Baptiso in Greek means to dunk. How does one "dunk" with the Holy Spirit?
It means to be fully enveloped by the Holy Spirit, as in a water immersion. THAT is the baptism that is needed for salvation.
God is present everywhere and always, so we are always "immersed" in God. Our Baptism is followed by chrismation, anoint with the holy oil, and sealing the Spirit as they say. The Catholics do it at the age of reason. When the Orthodox mean Baptism, we understand that it is both water and oil/Spirit.
So, our Orthodox and Catholic Baptism is salvific if one believes. But in order to enter the Church, the Body of Christ, we must be cleansed of all sin and our hearts have to be regenerated.
Obviously not all become believers, just as not all adults eventually come to God. That's why Baptism and Faith are two essential requirements for salvation, not just Faith.
Without the grace that comes at that time, nothing else happens.
Agreed. The grace of Christ's sacrifice on the Cross was offered to the whole world. He died for everyone's sins, not just the sins of some. His death made it possible for all to come to God, but not everyone will.
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.