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."
Who says that? Paul? Christ never taught anything like that. Sorry. That's not even how the Church during Paul's time was organized.
God, by His Will has a Plan for every believer
What "Plan?" Where does the Bible mention any God's "Plan?" God is transcendent, all-knowing and needs no planning. And everything God intended to do has already been done. Your God is traveling through time with us.
We don't understand what He wants us to do until we understand His Will and that is reveals to us in Scripture
And how do we know when and what He "wants" us to understand? When it makes sense to us?. Sorry, that is a formula for a man-centered and man-made 'church.'
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. Every other religion uses the same "reasoning" and their own "holy" books as the basis.
Sola Scriptura as a policy is a safe place to begin
No it's not because it is not even in the Bible. It's a man-made superstition.
Until He has built me beyond that point, I know He has provided Scripture for me to use to understand His Word and grow in Him, so Sola Scriptura for myself is a veritable beginning. The Church pre-existed the Christian canon, even the New Testament. So, nothing could be further from the truth. The life of the Church (liturgical life) existed before the NT was completed.
Yeah, like verse 23 (which you skip) which says
"It is written in the Law of the Lord, 'Every firstborn male that opens the womb shall be called HOLY to the Lord"
"Nice" teaching. LOL! Do you believe firstborn males are holy to God but firstborn females are not???? How Christ-like is that?
Irishtenor: 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.
Did you look at the references where Luke got this story from? From other Gospels! A little from here and a little from there! Nice story. But not an eyewitness. It certainly serves well to bolster the agenda, however.
And since we are on Luke, when was Jesus born? According to Matthew (2:1) and Luke (1:5), it was 4 B.C. because that was the year of Herod the Great's death.
But then Luke only a chapter later changes the story (2:1), and says He was born when Quirinius was the governed of the region, and he didn't become the governor of the region until 6 A.D. Some Protestants argue that (o tempora o moris!) that this is a translational error and that the copiers of the Bible were not inspired and therefore not free form error!
Thanks for (finally) admitting that we read error-filled copies of the originals.
Trouble is, such errors change the meaning. The argument says that protos can be "before" rather than "first." there is some truth in that, but there is a difference between ordinal numbers (grammatically) and temporal adjectives.
All translations indicate that it was a temporal number, first (as in the first time), not as in before. Wether that is what the original Acts say or not is a different story.
That's how the the Church read it and how it is translated in all the major Bibles. Ooops. Houston, we have a problem, bleep.
Another question is why did Mary have to be purified (Luke 2:22) since she was not defiled? Another question is how could Simeon be a just man when Paul says otherwise? (cf. Ecc 7:20) The rest of the Bible shows them to be in conflict (Gen 6:9, Ps 37:12, Prov 4:18, 9:9, 10:6, 10:20, 11:9, 12:13, 21, 17:15, 26, 20:7, 21: 15, 24:16, 29:10, Ecc 7:16 [and 7:0 says the opposite], 8:14, Isa 26:7, Lam 4:13, Eze 18:5-6, 9, Hos 14:9, Amos 5:12, Hab 2:4, Matt 1:19, 5:45, 13:49, Mark 6:20, Luk 1:17, 2:25, 14:14, 15:7, 23:50, Act 10:22, and 2 Pet 2:7).
In Luk 2:33 some "scribes" have changed the older versions that say "this child's father and mother" to "and Joseph and this child's mother..." so as to avoid any reference to Joseph as the Child's father, as some authors must have believed.
Thus, KJV says "And Jose and his mother marvelled.." but the Greek text says pathr (pater, father). Nothing like a little "touch up" choreography for effect! :)
I am sorry, but the credibility of any of this is really thin. But I guess it served the purpose.
How could they know what was promised UNLESS they knew scripture?
Indeed, how would one know if one didn't read critically what the various authors wrote and only accepted the "authorized" version of the truth?
So much for solo Scripture! The new NIV's are a total mess and are purposely translated in error by the people at Harper Zondervan
kosta50: "The Church pre-existed the Christian canon, even the New Testament. So, nothing could be further from the truth."
If you don't find Scripture to be veritable nor to contain the Word, then how does God reveal Himself to you?
In acts of mercy and love. For that is not in our nature, nor is it to be found in nature itself. Rather it is not of this world.
But God does reveal Himself in Scripture, when the Scripture speaks of mercy and love. But that's not the only source.
Yes, that is glaringly obvious. To the world Joseph was our oord's legal parent (a legal father). The Greeks had no reason to twist that, but apparently the Harper Zondervan do. Whom are they serving by falsifying the Bible? God? I doubt it.
I’ve found the Word of God became flesh and is known to us in the Lord and Savior Christ Jesus, who is one with the Father and is the Son of God, the Messiah, and is made known to us by the eyewitness testimony in the Gospels and of those with the spiritual gift of apostleship given by God the Holy Spirit, as chosen by the Son of God per the plan of the Father. all three persons who are one God.
If we seek to understand why He has given us life, then He has provided the Son of God as the image of the Father for us to understand. The Son is glorified by God the Holy Spirit in His work. His work includes the provision of His Word in Scripture. All true faith comes from Him, imcluding our initial saving faith, and more mature Bible doctrine built precept upon precept.
Mercy and love are easily misunderstood concepts, but through faith in Christ we have the perfect example of the type of love we are to have for our fellow man. Not all acts of mercy and love are provided by Him, but many are counterfeit to distract us from His Plan.
In regards to the accusation of Luke being contradictory in the timeline of Christ’s birth, this has been well studied and rigorously explained by many others.
One such study is provided below from http://www.christian-thinktank.com/quirinius.html
There are two main interpretations of this MS: one is that it refers to Q. Varus (placing Quirinius as a procurator during the birth of Christ), and the other that it refers to Quirinius himself.
The first option is defended by Ernest Martin in CKC:90:
” A Latin inscription found in 1764 about one-half mile south of the ancient villa of Quintilius Varus (at Tivoli, 20 miles east of Rome) states that the subject of the inscription had twice been governor of Syria. This can only refer to Quintilius Varus, who was Syrian governor at two different times. Numismatic evidence shows he ruled Syria from 6 to 4 B.C., and other historical evidence indicates that Varus was again governor from 2 B.C. to A.D. I. Between his two governorships was Sentius Saturninus, whose tenure lasted from 4 to 2 B.C. Significantly, Tertullian (third century) said the imperial records showed that censuses were conducted in Judea during the time of Sentius Saturninus. (Against Marcion 4:7). Tertullian also placed the birth of Jesus in 3 or 2 B.C. This is precisely when Saturninus would have been governor according to my new interpretation. That the Gospel of Luke says Quirinius was governor of Syria when the census was taken is resolved by Justin Martyr’s statement (second century) that Quirinius was only a procurator (not governor) of the province (Apology 1:34). In other words, he was simply an assistant to Saturninus, who was the actual governor as Tertullian stated.”
The second option is favored by William Ramsey (NBD, s.v. “Quirinius”):
“The possibility that Quirinius may have been governor of Syria on an earlier occasion (*Chronology of the NT) has found confirmation in the eyes of a number of scholars (especially W. M. Ramsay) from the testimony of the Lapis Tiburtinus (CIL, 14. 3613). This inscription, recording the career of a distinguished Roman officer, is unfortunately mutilated, so that the officer’s name is missing, but from the details that survive he could very well be Quirinius. It contains a statement that when he became imperial legate of Syria he entered upon that office ‘for the second time’ (Lat. iterum). The question is: did he become imperial legate of Syria for the second time, or did he simply receive an imperial legateship for the second time, having governed another province in that capacity on the earlier occasion?...The wording is ambiguous. Ramsay held that he was appointed an additional legate of Syria between 10 and 7 bc, for the purpose of conducting the Homanadensian war, while the civil administration of the province was in the hands of other governors, including Sentius Saturninus (8-6 bc), under whom, according to Tertullian (Adv. Marc. 4. 19), the census of Lk. 2:1ff. was held.
Under either of these scenarios, SOMEONE served twice, and under either of these scenarios, Quirinius could EASILY have been responsible for the census.
And curiously enough, even if that were NOT the case somehow, the linguistic data of the last few decades indicates that Luke 2.1 should be translated ‘BEFORE the census of Quirinius’ instead of the customary ‘FIRST census of Quirinius’—see Nigel Turner, Grammatical Insights into the New Testament, T&T Clark: 1966, pp. 23,24 and Syntax, p. 32. This would ‘solve the problem’ without even requiring two terms of office for Q.
And, while we are talking about Greek here...the term Luke uses for Quirinius’ ‘governorship’ is the VERY general term hegemon, which in extra-biblical Greek was applied to prefects, provincial governors, and even Caesar himself. In the NT it is similarly used as a ‘wide’ term, applying to procurators—pilate, festus, felix—and to general ‘rulers’ (Mt 2.6). [The New Intl. Dict. of New Test. Theology (ed. Brown) gives as the range of meaning: “leader, commander, chief” (vol 1.270)...this term would have applied to Quirinius at MANY times in his political career, and as a general term, Syria would have had several individuals that could be properly so addressed at the same time. Remember, Justin Martyr called him ‘procurator’ in Apology 1:34, which is also covered by this term.] My point is...nothing is really out of order here...
That's nonsense. Where does it say so in the Bible?
The Bible is God's revelation to all believers. It seems to me that those who believe the Bible was only meant for the cloistered few have no interest in a personal relationship with God. I would imagine the only relationship such would be interested in would be with other men. This separates those whose way of life is Christianity from those for whom Christianity is merely a hobby. With hobbies one can leave a lot of things to the experts, but for a way of life one needs to understand himself. Jesus said:
Matt 4:4 : Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.'"
Notice that it says MAN, not PRIESTS. A man LIVES on the word of God. A priest cannot eat for you, you can only eat for yourself. So, if one wants his life to be nourished by God, he MUST know the scriptures himself.
I suppose you could come back and say what about illiterates and such, but that is not your situation. You are fortunate enough to have the best of every world in terms of availability of the word of God. For anyone in your shoes to sluff off knowing scripture because that's someone else's job seems to me to be passing the buck and proclaiming that you have little responsibility before God. If you tell me that your only responsibilities are to do whatever your priests tell you to do, then your allegiance is to (and the faith would be in) them and not God.
There is no sola scriptura in the Scriptures!
But it's not your job to know that. The best you should be able to do is to tell me that your clergy do not believe in the Biblical teaching of Sola Scriptura. :)
FK: 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."
You are quibbling over oral vs. written and I am talking about the word of God. One CANNOT love God without knowing something of His word. While one CAN certainly come to true faith without having read a word for himself, especially if it is unavailable to him, the danger is in whether the human teacher actually has it right. If one DOES have the scriptures available he would be irresponsible for not reading them for himself. This is exactly what Paul was talking about with the Bereans. He was PROUD of them for not taking his word for it on anything. They searched the scriptures themselves. Paul implied with his praise that it was the responsible thing to do. Paul put the word of God ahead of himself. You appear to put everything else ahead of the word of 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.
Of all the hundreds or low thousands of Christian testimonies I have ever heard or read, not a single one goes anything like that. No Christian church I have ever heard of teaches anything like that. The Bible certainly doesn't teach that. Finally, if Jesus thought that, then He wouldn't have bothered with preaching or teaching.
You have argued a hundred times that the Holy Spirit does not lead the individual because how could anyone be sure that it was not secretly satan doing the leading. Yet now you tell me that our faith itself is baseless and so led by baseless "grace" and that you just somehow know it is from God. That is a glaring contradiction.
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.
Yes, there can be no other source of faith but God. You seem to be complaining that we say God needs no help, or that God cannot be improved upon. I believe that the Bible is the word of God, so if biblolatry is the devotion to the word of God, then I am guilty as charged. :) The alternative is a non sequitur to me, that a person says he is devoted to God, but NOT to His word.
FK: 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!
Well, I deal a lot with Latins too, and I know they would STRENUOUSLY disagree with what you say here. They would say the Canon was established 1,100 years or so before Trent. As far as differences go, I'd say that one is a pretty big deal. At any rate, one good thing to come from this is at least you can no longer say that we "removed" the aprocrypha from the Canon, since there WAS no Canon from which to remove it! :)
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!
What? I said that we Bible-believing Christians use that term to refer to each other, and that we know each other when we come across each other. My experience has been that the term works well across denominational lines. For these purposes, we could not possibly care less whether non-Bible believing Christians recognize us as such or not.
FK: 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?
God either intended to communicate MEANINGFULLY to His children, OR, He intended to communicate in secret code only to a few elite. If God truly loves ME and if He wants to have a personal relationship with ME, then it can only be the former. If the Apostolic interpretation is correct, then by definition a man cannot know God from the Bible. He can only know God through other men. I will never accept that because I am absolutely convinced that God does, in fact, love ME as more than a downline serf.
By rejecting the OT of the Apostles (Septuagint), 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!
We don't see anything "Christ-hating" in our OT. Christ is all over our OT and there are no contradictions. Where do you see Christ-hating in our OT that does not appear in the OT that you use? That is, to such a degree that you feel justified in making the generalization that ours IS Christ-hating and yours is not.
What?They are ALL counterfeit,not just many if the intent has evil motives.The devil cannot provide a true act of love or mercy,nor can anyone with an evil intent
They are not acts of love and mercy in the first place and one should not even call them acts of love and mercy.
Perhaps you should rethink this,Dear Friend
It was the same way every other Bible believing Christian has received it. After the last of the Bible manuscripts had been written, God moved certain men to form a Canon of scriptures, 66 books. These are the same books that God's Church had already accepted and was using. Other books were added later by a group of men not led by God, but the original 66 are still in use today by Bible believing Christians. We can know that the latter group was not led by God because the scriptures prohibit adding to them. If God's intent was to have the extra books included, then they would have been a part of the original Canon.
My response was to post #6565. I concur with you that counterfeit acts of love and mercy aren’t the love and mercy of God. I suspect we both agree that God does perform many acts of love and mercy which are true.
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.
You describe the revelation of men. I follow the revelation of God. If the Bible is God's word, then God should be thanked. If we are to thank men, then the Bible is not God's word.
Before and after the Bible they believed the Eucharist was truly Christ present.
By "they" I assume you mean your men, who represented a part of God's Church. That is irrelevant to me, however, since I do not thank any man for the Bible or its assembly. I give the glory to God. Those men could have had many errant beliefs, but that does not affect what God Himself did.
The Eucharist is greater than the scriptures because Christ is fully present in bodily form under the presence of humble bread and wine.
That is a very interesting admission. Jesus said:
Matt 4:4 : Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.'"
So, for you to say that a physical ritual tops God's own word I find astounding. You are, in effect, almost reversing what Jesus said. Let's not forget that the Bible says that God spoke the universe into existence. How do we top that? :) If we put down the word of God, then we put down God Himself. The power of God's word is greater than any physical ritual.
What a wonderful response!
You believe the power of “your own” interpretation of God's word is greater than Christ Himself fully present in the Eucharist.
The Eucharist is the same Christ full present in Bodily form who was born Mary,who performed miracles and who is the second person of the Holy Trinity.
Your Bible is not the original scriptures and has been translated incorrectly in many cases to suit a protestant interpretation.
Any interpretation of the Bible you try and use to attack the Sacraments goes against consistent historical teachings for over 2000 years from the Martyr's and the Saints without whom there would not have been a canon of the Bible.
You have your Bible with no unity and no historical interpretations of scriptures.
In fact,Dear brother, the protestant reformation broke unity with each other almost immediately after it began which PROVES that it was not of God.Personal interpretation of scripture is the main reason for disunity amongst Christians. That itself ought to tell you that solo Scripture is bogus
If Christianity was supposed to be solo Scripture than you need to ask yourself why the reformed God was not powerful enough to preserve the originals.
I love scriptures as well.fk,but I also love and trust the Saints and the Church because they gave witness to them and everything they did centered around Our Eucharistic Lord present in the most Holy Sacrament of love.
Thanks for the clarification,Dear Friend.
I wish you a Blessed day!
Huh?!? Christ came to give hope to the whole world, not only "His" people.
Once again, if that is so then either Christ is a colossal failure or a satanic teaser. Christ came already knowing the specific names of all those who ever lived who would never believe. Why would He string them along?
That still doesn't explain why divide a son form his father. That makes no sense.
Because non-believers pose a temptation to believers, especially among family members. We love our family members, but if we put them in front of God and compromise our faith, then believers could slide away from the faith. That could turn us from being useful to God to useless to God. That is obviously not good. :)
FK: 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.
Well, I couldn't care less if the Muslims like it or not. :) I just go by scripture:
John 15:19 : If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.
I'll just let the Gospels speak for themselves.
FK: It is better to be hated than concede the true faith to make peace.
Oh boy! That sounds positively jihadist!
Then from now on I will assume that you think it is better to concede your faith than to be hated by others. Is this an attitude in all of Orthodoxy?
FK: 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.
That's non sequitur. Jesus made comparisons all the time. Do you deny He was making one here? I will assume you're sticking with "Matthew lied".
What are heavenly rewards, FK? Penthouse condos in the clouds with a view? :)
The Bible doesn't tell us exactly, so I don't know. The Bible just says they are judged separately from the salvation judgment.
Your heavenly reward is being saved. Your punishment is being lost.
The Bible says this:
1 Cor 3:10-15 : 10 By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds. 11 For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13 his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's work. 14 If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. 15 If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.
So according to this, there ARE two separate judgments.
Matt 4:4 : Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.'"
The Eucharist is not bread,fk, It is changed into Christ,so as usual you use the Bible for your own purpose.
In doing so you elevate your own belief above the Saints whom God worked miracle's through in the same manor as the devil who tries to steal the throne of God by attacking the consistent belief of the most humble loving people of God throughout Christian history.
What good is the Bible if you don't interpret it correctly and love is not the final outcome?
Your interpretations make a mockery out of the Early Christians.
Wake Up,Dear Brother!
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.
Of what possible relevance could it be whether or not they read the Septuagint? You act as if that would be absolutely critical to their understanding. Wrong, and totally off point. The point is that you were attacking the scriptures and I said that Paul taught that they should be consulted above oral teaching.
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.
Ridiculous. You leave out:
Mark 9:30-31 : 30 They left that place and passed through Galilee. Jesus did not want anyone to know where they were, 31 because he was teaching his disciples. He said to them, "The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of men. They will kill him, and after three days he will rise."
There is absolutely no way you can sell it as a certainty that Mark was not written and known to Paul before 1 Cor. No way.
FK: 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?!?
OK, then you work as hard as you can for your salvation and I will have faith for mine. :)
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.
Does the Orthodox Church represent objective truth?
FK: 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.
So, God's hand-picked, right-hand man to Moses was comparable to Andrea Yates. OK. I guess Moses was also a crazy man since he ordered Joshua to kill people:
Ex 17:8-14 : 8 The Amalekites came and attacked the Israelites at Rephidim. 9 Moses said to Joshua , "Choose some of our men and go out to fight the Amalekites. Tomorrow I will stand on top of the hill with the staff of God in my hands."
10 So Joshua fought the Amalekites as Moses had ordered, and Moses, Aaron and Hur went to the top of the hill. 11 As long as Moses held up his hands, the Israelites were winning, but whenever he lowered his hands, the Amalekites were winning. 12 When Moses' hands grew tired, they took a stone and put it under him and he sat on it. Aaron and Hur held his hands up — one on one side, one on the other — so that his hands remained steady till sunset. 13 So Joshua overcame the Amalekite army with the sword.
14 Then the Lord said to Moses, "Write this on a scroll as something to be remembered and make sure that Joshua hears it, because I will completely blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven."
This is the same crazy, murdering Moses about whom Jesus said:
John 5:46 : If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me.
So here, you have Jesus supporting, in the Gospels, a man you put in the same league with Andrea Yates. OK.
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.
Yes, I agree in principle. :) And the truth is that the Reformation movement directly opposed Renaissance philosophers. The Renaissance men were humanists who believed that man was autonomous and that the starting point for understanding the universe was man himself. Naturally, the Catholic Church was heavily on the side of the Renaissance thinkers. The Apostolic Church rejected the idea of the complete Fall, and added the element of man's inner goodness. Francis Schaeffer said it well in his book "Escape From Reason":
"In the Roman Catholic position there was a decided work of salvation - Christ died for our salvation, but man had to merit the merit of Christ. Thus there was a humanistic element involved. The Reformers said that there is nothing man can do; no autonomous or humanistic religious or moral effort of man can help. One is saved only on the basis of the finished work of Christ as He died in space and time in history, and the only way to be saved is to raise the empty hands of faith and, by God's grace, to accept God's free gift - faith alone. It was Scripture alone and faith alone."
Renaissance thinkers could not accept this because anything other than man was in control. The Catholic Church naturally went along for the ride. While that period saw amazing production in the artistic areas of painting, music, literature, sculpture, etc., and even science, their own narcissism led their theology over the edge. For God's owns reasons, at that time He decided to right the ship and formalize Reformation theology.
[Continued on next post]
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.