Posted on 09/24/2006 3:59:37 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg
At the time of the American Revolution, almost every Christian denomination in America affirmed the Reformed doctrine of predestination. Christians believed that God alone was to be credited with their salvation—even their cooperation with God’s grace was brought about by God’s grace. God had chosen some for eternal life and not others, and only God knew his reasons for the selection. Baptists, Anglicans, Congregationalists, Dutch Reformed, and (of course) Presbyterians—all stood solidly upon this biblical teaching. One thing, however, was sure—God didn’t choose us because he knew we would believe. Rather, we believed because God chose us. God was God, and all the glory would go to him.
After two centuries of immersion in American culture, however, American Christianity has entered the new millennium in a state of crisis. Few Americans today believe in predestination. They may say they do, but they then define predestination as based upon God’s foresight of our faith. In the end, the reason I’m saved was because of my free will, not God’s sovereign choice. I guess the reason I believed when my neighbor didn’t is because I was just better than my neighbor. I was good enough to believe by my own free will. I thank you, Father, that I had the good sense to cooperate with you....
I’ll say this right at the outset. Free-will Christianity is a bastardization of biblical Christianity. It is inconsistent Christianity. Perhaps “heresy” is even a fair term for it. All this “free will” thinking is just another form of legalism, making salvation depend upon us rather than upon Jehovah. Don’t get me wrong—many who buy this thinking are genuine, sincere believers and will be with the Lord forever. After all, a major point in this class will be that God’s grace is more powerful than our blindness. But there has been a lack of biblical teaching here for decades. The result of this dearth has been an even bigger problem, a problem so terrifying as to threaten the very vitality of the American church. We have lost sight of God’s greatness. How rare today is a sermon on God’s majesty, his sovereign power, his wrath, his judgment, his overpowering rule over history, his supremacy, his fierceness, his eternal predestination. If we’re really, really honest with ourselves, Do we truly know God anymore? We have tamed God. Castrated him, perhaps. As one theologian laments... our thoughts of God have become far too human.
This should come as no surprise in America. For two centuries, the church has existed in an American culture whose highest values are personal liberty and individual rights. It would be quite natural for Christians here to filter the Bible through such a lens. The kingdom of God has to be all about me. It has to be relevant to my life, right? And if I am saved, it has to be because of my decisions, right? My will has to be free, right? God would be unfair to have it any other way. God has to be an equal opportunity Savior. Isn’t God a democracy? Didn’t Jesus preach about the Republic of God? All this is to suggest that American churches don’t teach predestination because they are more American than they are Christian. We have come to think that our God is small. Now it’s time for a new Reformation in the churches, a Reformation in which we honor God as God, not just as mascot. We need a Reformation in which God is glorified as God, and not just as someone who “fills our needs.” Enough about our needs! It’s far past time we let God be God. I know of no “need” more pressing than this.
Still, even with all this misunderstanding about predestination, nearly every major Christian denomination in history has felt compelled to have some doctrine of predestination. Our generation is not the first to have to work through this biblical issue. About the year 400, Augustine and Pelagius fought over this doctrine—and Pelagius was condemned as a heretic for his doctrine of free will. Then at the Council of Orange in 529 AD, the Christians united to reject free will in favor of God’s sovereign grace. And again in 855, the Council of Valence affirmed a double predestination. During the Protestant Reformation in the sixteenth century, Martin Luther called the doctrine of predestination the cor ecclesia, the heart of the Church. Luther wrote more about predestination than did John Calvin, even though the term “Calvinism” was unfortunately applied to the doctrine. If one looks at the greatest theologians in the 2,000 years of Christian history—Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Edwards—although these men disagree on other issues and are by no means infallible, all of them agree on this question of predestination.
“We confess a predestination of the elect to life, and a predestination of the wicked to death; that, in the election of those who are saved, the mercy of God precedes anything we do, and in the condemnation of those who will perish, evil merit precedes the righteous judgment of God.”
—Council of Valence, 855
“Predestination to Life is the everlasting Purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) He hath decreed by His counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom He hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honor.”
—Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England, 1563
St. Augustine (543-430)
“From all eternity God decreed all that should happen in time, and this He did freely and unalterably, consulting only His own wise and holy will.... The angels and men who are the subjects of God's predestination are clearly and irreversibly designated, and their number is unalterably fixed.”
—The Baptist Confession of 1689
The term predestination itself is clear enough: the eternal destinies of men and women were determined beforehand (pre) by God. Before the creation, God chose who would go to heaven and who would go to hell. Christians believe in predestination for one simple reason. The Bible teaches it. No other reason will suffice. In Ephesians 1:5-6, for example, Scripture tells us when this choice took place—before creation, in eternity. And the Bible tells us what this predestination is unto—adoption through Jesus, to be holy and blameless before God. And it tells us here why God chose us—so that his glory could be praised.
“For He chose us in Him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in His sight. In love He predestined us to be adopted as His sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with His pleasure and will-- to the praise of His glorious grace.”
Three views on Predestination
The real question in not whether or not Christians should believe in predestination—the Bible clearly teaches predestination. The real question is this: whom did God predestine to eternal life, and (even more importantly) why did God choose those He predestined?
1. The optimistic view: God has predestined everybody to eternal life. Satan has predestined everybody to eternal death. God is for you, the Devil is against you—you have to cast the tie-breaker. The problem with this view is that it has absolutely nothing to do with the Bible's view of predestination. The Bible clearly states that not everyone is predestined, but only those who will eventually believe and enjoy eternal life. Christians are frequently called the elect, as opposed to the non-elect, and are said to be the chosen ones (see Rom 8:33; 11:7; 1 Cor 1:27-29; Col 3:12; 2 Tim 2:10; Tit 1:1; 1 Pe 2:8-9)—God has not chosen everyone. God has chosen some for eternal life and rejected others. But on what basis has God chosen some?
2. The Arminian view: God has predestined some to eternal life because He saw in advance that such persons would cooperate with the Holy Spirit and believe by their own free will. God gives everyone an equal amount of grace, and those willing to take it are saved. God chose us because we were going to choose Him.
3. The Reformed (Calvinist) view: God predestined some to eternal life, not because He saw that they would have believed on their own (They wouldn’t have!), but because of His own good pleasure. God chose us despite our rejection of Him, not because we would be cooperative. God chose to change our hearts, and he has done so and will continue to do so until all of his elect are gathered.
Calvinists and Arminians agree that only some are elect, and that those who are elect will come to faith and believe until the end (if, in fact, they are elect). And everyone agrees that those who turn from sin to follow Christ are saved. The question is this: On what basis did God predestine them? Did God predestine some because He knew they would believe of their own free will, or did He predestine without regard to human choices? Was God's choice based on our choice, or is our choice itself as a result of God's choice? The Five Points of Calvinism
In 1610, a group of the followers of James Arminius, a Dutch professor, presented a list of five grievances to the Dutch Parliament. Imbued with the humanism then arising within Europe, these “Arminians” were not pleased with the direction the Protestant Reformation had taken—objecting particularly to the doctrine of predestination as the Reformers (Luther, Calvin) had taught it. After eight years of biblical study and reflection, however, the Reformation churches meeting at Dort rejected the five Arminian objections as unbiblical. Their response followed the five Arminian objections, and has been passed down to us as the “Five Points” of Calvinism, known for its acronym, TULIP:
Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, and the Perseverance of the saints. There are better titles for each of these doctrines—and this class will not deal with the extent of the atonement (that will have to be dealt with later). The two theological systems may be compared as follows:
The name “Five Point of Calvinism” is a little misleading, of course. Calvinist churches teach more than five points—the vision is to teach the whole counsel of God! These particular five points were simply the five under fire in the seventeenth century. One might suggest that these are five of the hundred or so points of biblical Christianity. Yet the one great point behind all five points is the supreme point that salvation is of the Lord, from beginning to end. God is God, and he does as he pleases. And if he has chosen to give us salvation, we’re going to make sure that we give all the glory for it to him, not to ourselves. Predestination is not just a Presbyterian thing. As the nineteenth century English Baptist preacher C.H. Spurgeon exclaimed, “I love to preach the strong old doctrines nicknamed Calvinism, but which are surely and verily the revealed truth of God as it is in Christ Jesus.”
The children of Israel were fed by God in the wilderness and brought to the holy mountain to receive His laws. Yet even with God thundering and lightening before them, they quickly left the truth that the God before them had brought them out of Egypt. Instead they formed a calf, an object of Egypt, after their own liking and began to worship and celebrate what they believed God was like. Their celebration might have looked honorable but that was far from the truth as God was prepared to destroy them. They refused to acknowledge that God had brought them out of Egypt.
My point in this story is that I see the erosion in orthodoxy Christianity as man’s attempt to make God into his image. We dismiss things in the bible as “stories” or “mysteries” while picking and choosing those verses we feel most comfortable with. To fill in the gaps, we supplement our “holes” with philosophical arguments rather than the traditional Protestant view of letting scripture interpret scripture and, where it is silent, we should be silent. Christians today have more resources and capability of researching historical teaching, yet we would rather spend our time reading the DaVinci Codes or A Purpose Driven Life rather than the creeds of the Protestant faith or the nuances of Hebrew and Greek words. We argue points without any historical references just to support views and teachings that have no foundation in biblical Christianity.
We are in some ways like the children of Israel, wishing to fashion a god after our image. Our fancy ceremonies, praise gatherings and clothing drives do nothing for our spirituality; Muslims have these. Megaplex churches with fancy food courts do not impress God no matter how many times we sing "Our God is an Awesome God". The thing God values is His word and we have lost the concept that God’s word is holy and to treat it as such. Failing to understand it properly will incur His wrath, not His love and understanding. He has given us more means today then Christians have had at any time in history; yet we still make golden calves rather then studying to show ourselves approved.
The young pastor smiled and said, "I can't take any of the credit; it was all the Spirit speaking through me."
"Well, it wasn't that good," she retorted.
It's funny how in trying to be humble, we can actually be quite proud. When we make noises about our beliefs or practices all being of God, that is in effect a claim to be Divinely inspired and correct, and that anyone who disagrees with us is therefore by definition less Spiritual than we are. That or we're just spouting meaningless platitudes to impress other mortal men.
If one is going to discuss theology, the discussion should remain on theology grounded in the Scripture, not devolve into a [watering] contest about who's more humble and Divinely inspired than who.
I think that is a valid point. I find most older translations, whatever manuscript they're based upon, are generally the same. We shouldn't leave the impression that there are radical differences. They aren't.
I never develop doctrine from translations. That is what creeds, councils and historical writings were for. We just need to search the scriptures to see if what these councils and writings tell us is so.
Noises?
and that anyone who disagrees with us is therefore by definition less Spiritual than we are.
What are your Passover threads if not an attempt to display the "Spiritual superiority" of the Messianic Jews who keep the old laws and customs of the Torah?
If one is going to discuss theology, the discussion should remain on theology grounded in the Scripture, not devolve into a [watering] contest about who's more humble and Divinely inspired than who.
I don't see any of the Reformed making that error. I see the Reformed acknowledging that God gets all the glory because the faith of all Trinitarian Christians is by grace alone, from our justification by the shed blood of Christ to our sanctification by the work of the Holy Spirit. And I see this in response to being told we're under some illusion that God is sovereign and the author of our faith.
The Arminian, by definition, says without his conscious cooperation with God, his salvation would not take place. OTOH, the Reformed, by definition, says his salvation is not dependent on his good choice to believe, but on God's choice to bestow grace through Trinitarian faith in Jesus Christ.
It seems clear here who is claiming what.
I have heard that interpretation before. There are some scriptures that make me think that there may be another explanation here. First, Adam is a figure of Christ.(Rom 5:14) and therefore Eve is a figure of the Church. (Eph 5:31-32) Also, Adam was not deceived. (1 Tim 2:14)
Any attempt we make to say that Adam did not understand what he was doing, is saying that he was deceived. Perhaps when Adam said "the woman whom thou gavest to be with me," he was saying to God; "I choose to die with the woman whom I love rather than live without her."
Dylan's work in the 70s, and the milieu in which it occurred was as you describe it, but I don't believe he ever really bought into the hippie mentality. He was way too smart for that. I think it was more akin to the Clemenza thing: he took the pacific-rim herb, and the home-grown hallucinogenics, and left the philosophy.
I sense the actual movement of my being, even during periods of intense temptation. Maybe especially so then.
That's where everything broke down before and where the doctrine of free-will (not free choice) also breaks down: I had no sense of my being moving in Him, really being in Him. Everything proceeded from my own independent but separated will. It didn't always take the form of naked rebellion, in fact, it rarely did. It most often took the form of benign neglect, of forgetfulness, and in effect denying my being was solely in him. It was a most passive sort of atheism. When I decrease or more accurately my view of self decreases, my being in Him undulates according solely to His will, and increases, and bears fruit.
Even though I've not contributed very much to this thread as it relates to Predestination, it's been cathartic and has helped me sort a few things out. So much of what I've been experiencing for these past several months is what is at the heart of the Reformation. This, from S.M. Hutcheon's C.S. Lewis and Mother Kirk, is what I mean:
In coming to the Faith, Christians like Lewis experience as essential to Christianity what might be called an eschatological displacement, the belief that while this world reflects the life of God and transmits it sacramentally, the Object of faith and hope is realized only beyond this world, where it must always be firmly kept not only by the tellers of tales, but the custodians of the life and faith of the Church. Lewis states this explicitly in Father Wisdom's discourse in Pilgrim's Regress....To the Protestant Lewis was, the temptation to regard any ecclesial form, as faithful as it might be to its heavenly archetype, as the One, True, Church that comprehends heaven and earth, presenting itself as offering in the here and now, especially to disappointed seekers after certitude, the kind of supernal finalities the Catholic Church appears to offer her children, is something to be resisted in every one of the many forms it takes within that Church. What we find here, in the darkened glass of our present existence, are reflections-true reflections, but still only reflections-of glory that leads us on toward it, but cannot fully comprehend that glory or its joy in itself.
One cannot make a perfectly loyal church member, a wholly devoted convert, of any Christian who thinks this way, for he will never take his church, whichever church that might be, with the ultimate seriousness the accredited magisteriums (as they must to be what they are) require. He will always look beyond them for something higher and better, of which their communions are at best only worthy reflections. He will always be accused by the partisans of those churches with malignant individualism, and be classed with the truly malignant individualists, for doing it, even when his deepest love and firmest devotion is for the same City Father Abraham saw afar off, for the Kingdom that is not of this world, for the heavenly Jerusalem of which every earthly Jerusalem is only the barest reflection.
Please don't misunderstand. Doctrine and Confession of the Faith are both very important; they're integral, especially for greater unity. The point I'm trying to make here is that however one can name that experiential sense of knowing one's being is with Him, moves with Him, it is this sense that so strives to break the philosophical chains that bind it. And, it was this primordial and irrepressible undercurrent that really led to the Reformation and ensured it's success.
We do not divorce responsibility from choice. God is sovereign and man is responsible. We agree on that but differ radically on how that plays out practically. We are responsible for the choices we make in the circumstances we are under. God is sovereign over the circumstances. He superintends all that happens according to His good will and purpose. If He ordains man's choice to do evil, it is not for evil's sake but for some good purpose He will bring about through it (see Joseph).
= == = ==
Sorry, but that whole paragraph appears to be nothing but rubber 'logic,' weasel words, to me. Doesn't jive with what I know of God or reality. Doesn't even make what I prefer to construe, normally, as sense.
Amen and amen!
We are in some ways like the children of Israel, wishing to fashion a god after our image. Our fancy ceremonies, praise gatherings and clothing drives do nothing for our spirituality; Muslims have these. Megaplex churches with fancy food courts do not impress God no matter how many times we sing "Our God is an Awesome God"...
I was reminded of this when I went back to some writings by John Knox. Wow. He writes so passionately about holding our Christian feet to the galvanizing fire of Scripture. And in those days, clarity and robust preaching like that could get you killed.
From the editor's preface to Knox' letter...
About this same time, Knox addressed a letter to the English nation, calling for national repentance over the recent apostasy during Mary's reign, and explaining the urgency of a thorough reformation. Some historians have reflected negatively on the vehemence of Knox's remarks. Perhaps they should peruse the long list of the martyrs named in the appendix to this work. Critics may then find a clue for understanding the reformer's zeal. Knox is discussing serious matters of life and death spiritual issues which affect us deeply in this life, and for eternity...""In November 1558, Bloody Mary died, much to the relief of the entire Protestant world. Most of the Englishmen in Knox's congregation in Geneva made plans to return quickly to their native country.
We are not really far apart, HarleyD. We can find strong agreement that man should not “make God into his (own) image.”
To me, it is a subtle form of idolatry.
Further, I aver that any Christian (i.e., Trinitarian) theology is in spiritual error when it declares itself as the way and the truth rather than Christ, in effect refusing to acknowledge that those who embrace one theology may be the arm of the body of Christ, while others may be the heart or the brain, etc.
Moreover, exclusionary posturing causes discord among the brethren which is an abomination to God (Proverbs 6). I would characterize it as inadvertent religious class warfare, i.e. ”we who are A are more sanctified in the sight of God because we believe B and you believe C.”
It seems to me that this is the natural consequence of individual mortals being wired differently and many trying to do just as you, ”make God in man’s image”.
Some of us are drawn to the formalities much like Peter. Some of us are drawn to the love much like John. Some of us are drawn to the discipline much like James – or fellowship, mysteries, miracles, benevolence, etc.
Christ chose twelve very different apostles. We should learn from that.
IOW, I assert that the fact a person is drawn to one Trinitarian theological emphasis over another does not make him less a Christian – just a different Christian.
I assert that neither the As nor the Bs are completely wrong – and neither the As nor the Bs are completely right. I fully expect to speak with both Calvin and Arminius in heaven – and Amish believers as well as Catholic, Orthodox as well as Presbyterian, Baptist as well as Pentecostal, etc.
You see, I believe hosepipe hit the nail squarely on the head when he coined the phrase that ”Christ didn’t come to establish a religion but rather a family.”
We are siblings who, sadly, often look at our Father through the child-like eyes of the carnal person we were rather than through the spiritual eyes of the new person we have become in Christ (Romans 8:9).
They are for explaining what the elements and symbols of the various Feasts mean, and for sharing with each other the joy we have in keeping them. If you'd actually read my last two articles, you'd note that I nowhere say that keeping them makes one more enlightened, Spiritual, or pleasing to God. I have also been careful to say that even though I believe that you are mistaken in your understanding of the New Covenant's relationship to the Torah--and have successfully counter-argued your prooftexts against Torah-keeping--that I also understand you to be honestly mistaken, to love the Lord, and to be worshiping and honoring Him to the best of your understanding. I have stated over and over again that I still consider Sunday Christians to be my brothers and sisters in the Messiah.
You're the ones who keep invading threads dedicated to discussing the symbols and purposes of the Feasts and turning them into fistfights over whether may not, may, or should keep them.
Articles like yours, on the other hand, which state, "Free-will Christianity is a bastardization of biblical Christianity," are clearly about throwing down the gauntlet and stating that those who do not emphasize God's sovereignty in precisely the way that you do are not true Christians. You therefore have exactly zero room to complain about articles that merely discuss what the Feasts mean, irrespective of whether we should keep them or not, without being called down for hypocrisy.
I don't see any of the Reformed making that error.
Then you are completely biased and blind to the faults of your own side, while being hyper-sensitive to any perceived arrogance or insult from the other. The fact that you lashed out this way against a post urging conciliation and keeping the discussion intellectual just cements the fact that you are employing a huge double-standard here.
The Arminian, by definition, says without his conscious cooperation with God, his salvation would not take place. OTOH, the Reformed, by definition, says his salvation is not dependent on his good choice to believe, but on God's choice to bestow grace through Trinitarian faith in Jesus Christ.
I am well aware of your opening position, Ecks. Simply restating it doesn't actually constitute making a proper argument, and I'm not going to jump in on an issue that has long since been played out, since simply repeating all of the arguments on both sides that have already been stated is just arguing in circles, and I'm not going to go back through a three thousand post thread and write a book dealing with all of the arguments.
I have contributed my thoughts on a subject that had not been played out (what the Bible means when it says that God repents), and now I have contributed my thoughts on couching sanctimony in humility and on keeping the discussion on the facts of Scripture. I am not going to get into a fight with you over who said what when--the record is plain to see for anyone who cares to look at the thread objectively, and other than using FK's post as a jumping off point (since I cited him on the Yom Kippur thread and he took it with good grace), I've not picked on either side here.
Well, what is the alternative then? If my beliefs are not from God, then they must be from me, right? Is it really more humble to say that I used my great intellect to arrive at my Christian beliefs? I simply don't think so.
Divine inspiration, not in the Apostle or other Biblical author sense, is simply the work of the Holy Spirit that happens in ALL Christians. Calvinists claim NO corner on the market. That's why I keep saying that you could say the same thing, if you believe it. From the lack of response to that I've been getting, I am starting to infer that you all do not believe it, and think that you used your own reasoning ability to decide on which Christian system to follow.
If one is going to discuss theology, the discussion should remain on theology grounded in the Scripture, not devolve into a [watering] contest about who's more humble and Divinely inspired than who.
That is fine with me. My original post was clearly meant as a supposition from one Reformer to other Reformers. It was never meant as a poke in the eye to anyone else. Marlowe was already on the original ping list and I did not remove him from it since those comments were not DIRECTED AT him.
In any event, it was never my intention to start a "who's more holy" contest. I believe that God sanctifies us ALL, and that part of that sanctification includes soteriological and other beliefs. It did not occur to me that this would be controversial. :)
AG, you've articulated the distinction perfectly. An understanding of God's will within us is at first ignored; overlooked; willfully disregarded. Then, miraculously, by God's grace, we begin to actually sense that we are not our own. At first, this is a pretty foreign concept because we've been told from the cradle that we're autonomous and independent creatures.
But in reading Scripture with opened eyes and ears, we begin to realize our merciful status as "being solely in Him."
I remember once searching Scripture to see if we were in Christ or Christ was in us. And to my happy surprise, both statements are true. That's how much we are part of the will of God.
When I decrease or more accurately my view of self decreases, my being in Him undulates according solely to His will, and increases, and bears fruit.
Yes. That's exactly what happens. It's what Arminians keep questioning and what the Reformed struggle to articulate to them. By first believing that all things are by His will, that reality then becomes clear and we see it and know it and live it.
All by the will of God alone.
however one can name that experiential sense of knowing one's being is with Him, moves with Him, it is this sense that so strives to break the philosophical chains that bind it.
Amen.
I am concerned that life is not real.
In all appearances, it seems to be real.
But in most theology, it gets explained away or undercut.
BTW, I'm serious.
I think the wiser course in a debate is to simply leave that unsaid. I think we would all fully grant that those of your beliefs which are Biblically correct in all details and emphasizes are in fact from God. However, since there is a dispute about those beliefs which we are in the process of discussing, saying, "All my beliefs are from God," or anything equivalent is tantamount to saying that you are Divinely correct and perfect.
Like the young pastor in the story, we want to be careful about giving God the credit for our imperfections. It's better to say, "Whatever good I speak is of God, and I pray that my imperfections do not distort His teachings."
Of course, that's pretty much understood to be a given.
Divine inspiration, not in the Apostle or other Biblical author sense, is simply the work of the Holy Spirit that happens in ALL Christians. Calvinists claim NO corner on the market. That's why I keep saying that you could say the same thing, if you believe it.
And I agree with that; however, since we're all prone to jumping on perceptions of arrogance on the other side--notice Ecks and TC jumping on us Messianics for even discussing the Feastdays, because they think that by discussing and observing them we're somehow putting ourselves on a pedestal above non-Torah-observant believers--and thus sidetrack the discussion, it's better to keep the discussion on the facts (i.e. the Scriptures) rather than turn the focus on ourselves and set each other off.
My primary concern is one of utility: What keeps the discussion moving in an edifying manner in which the most information is exchanged and examined Scripturally and logically? Whatever turns the thread personal destroys that edification, and thus takes away from God's glory, since we turn our attention from His Word to each other.
My original post was clearly meant as a supposition from one Reformer to other Reformers. It was never meant as a poke in the eye to anyone else. Marlowe was already on the original ping list and I did not remove him from it since those comments were not DIRECTED AT him.
I understand that. However, if one is going to make statements in a public area, one has to expect others to read them and respond to them.
Perhaps the best course would simply be for all involved to apologize for any appearance of arrogance we may have inadvertantly given, and forgive each other for any perceived slights. For my part, I apologize to anyone who has been offended by any appearance of arrogance on my part. It is not intentional, I assure you. This does not, of course, constitute a promise to give up voicing my honestly-held beliefs, nor will I take any apology offered by anyone else to be a concession of one's views either.
Shalom.
I apologize to everyone.
Excellent point, and one I certainly didn't mean to imply. There may be different manuscripts and variants among manuscripts, but from everything I've read there are no significant differences. Some might claim otherwise but having looked at the evidence I would vehemently disagree.
I never develop doctrine from translations.
Glad to hear it.
That is what creeds, councils and historical writings were for. We just need to search the scriptures to see if what these councils and writings tell us is so.
I've never been much of one for creeds. Well, maybe when I was younger and I certainly help my children understand scripture through various creeds. It's as you say, we search the Bible to determine what is so.
Relax. Life is as "real" as God wants it to be.
In all appearances, it seems to be real.
Generally. Sometimes life seems uncertain, in a "glass, darkly" kind of way. But we have Scripture's assurance that one day we will see "face to face."
But in most theology, it gets explained away or undercut.
What gets "explained away or undercut?" Life? Reality? I think a lot of theologies misunderstand "reality."
There is no reality except God. It's His script. We are His creation, every jot and tittle. Nothing is outside or beyond or "free" of His comprehensive will.
And that's a very good thing. I hope you find time to read the following short essay.
And that's one reason I find it is undercut.
Actors in a script are not real....they're figments of someone's imagination with no thoughts, hopes, foibles of their own.
Your rhetoric is unnecessarily combative. Relax.
These discussions get side-tracked into personal rebuttals when you make it personal by directing critical words at people and not at ideas. Stick to the topic and declare what you believe and where you feel your opposition errs. And please stop attributing hyper-emotional motives to people, like "lashing out."
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.