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?
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.