Posted on 01/27/2008 7:56:14 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
This is an excellent example of how people read into the text things that are not there. Consider the text:
If people would pay closer attention to what the text ACTUALLY states versus what they THINK the text states, it would make our Calvinist teaching a little bit easier.
Amen. God must open up our ears. This is the inward call.
But the biblical "fact" has to be authenticated by the a priori "knowledge" (gnosis), otherwise it's not a biblical 'fact' is it?
Well, I really don't see any connection between "gnosis" and Biblical fact, unless you are saying that (only for us?) "gnosis" and faith itself are the same thing. Perhaps for you "gnosis" is any knowledge or interpretation that is different from your own personal interpretation. If you don't personally buy it, then it must be magical "gnosis" and therefore false? But there is a problem. While you will accede to any teaching of your Church as correct, you still disagree personally with some/many of their holdings. Why would your Church not also be guilty of gnosis? Or, is gnosis anything that disagrees with you OR your Church? :)
You see where I'm coming from? The argument I appear to be getting is that if one puts his trust on earth in a group of men, then he cannot be guilty of gnosis because those men cannot be guilty of gnosis, (proof unavailable at this time). However, if one puts his trust on earth in the word of God, THEN he must be a Gnostic and most everything he believes is wrong. This argument just doesn't hold water.
What you call faith is not hope but certainty of the (s)elect, which neither you nor anyone else can prove, so it is pointless to speak of it as a matter of fact. Claiming such knowledge as fact is at its root Gnostic.
Our proof that the elect exist is in the Bible. Our proof that an individual can know if he or she is of the elect is in the Bible. The FACT is that it is in the Bible. Now, whether it is true or not is another matter for many people. But for some people, if it is in the Bible, then it is a fact (in the context of the whole Bible). I know that for you there is no proof (that I am aware of) that will satisfy you of this. So, I am at a loss as to what to do about that.
But it is OK. In the same way there is nothing I can think of that you can do to prove to me that I should reject what I think the Bible clearly says, and instead follow what the men of your Church say it really means. For me that would be to throw away the rational in order to embrace the irrational. I'm just not in a position to do that. :) Therefore, I would think that by your own standards, we would have every bit as much right to accuse you of Gnosticism as you have to accuse us.
Yes, AMEN on all points! There will always be consequences for straying. Otherwise, sin doesn't matter. And none of us believe that sin doesn't matter, no matter what we are accused of. But salvation is different. That is His dominion, and His dominion alone, as the Bible tells us. How presumptive it is of some to think that they can cause to effect the closing of their own salvations. I guess many men just have to know that they are in control.
I think it’s hazardous to infer and extrapolate . . .
Nevertheless, imho,
ANYONE WHO earnestly TAKES GOD AT HIS WORD
AND earnestly APPLIES IT IN THEIR LIVES . . .
can expect to be included in the class of those who reap it’s benefits.
imho, that can functionally end up pretty . . . close to “all,” if not well over that line.
I think the attitude of the heart . . . is critical, as always.
Kosta, the language is very simple. The words are very simple. Your mind may work in some very . . . interesting ways . . . however, You are very bright.
I hope you are not trying to be deliberately obtuse.
Once again:
KOSTA50 SAID:
I am not opposed to Mark 16:17-18. I am simply asking where are those signs the verse speak of as a promise to the believers?!
= = = =
Kosta, here, you are asking WHERE ARE THOSE SIGNS mentioned in Mark 16:17-18 . . . asking Prottys, as I recall. I think it’s a fair question to ask.
It is Scripture. Scripture is true. Scripture is certainly true for those who apply it earnestly in faith to the best of their abilities, by and with God’s Grace and Spirit.
But if you are going to ask the question, I think it quite reasonable for you to answer the same question.
How often are those signs, mentioned in Mark, in your local Orthodox congregation and to what extent . . .
i.e.
How OFTEN [pretty simple word, Kosta, as in how frequently] in terms of times per service; times per month or some such?
How dramatically? AS in . . . how unusual, how atypical, how startling?
How miraculously? As in how obviously in ‘violation’ of the ‘normal’ laws of reality that most deal with on a daily basis.
#######################
IF you fail to answer the question this time, I shall intrpret that as wholesale obtuseness, disingenuousness and duplicity relative to your asking the question of others while being unwilling to answer the same question yourself.
Additionally, I shall be selling my “shares of stock in ‘Kosta’s-useful-Scriptural-insight’” at a much reduced rate.
But don't you rely on just such "endless verses" to prove the authority of the Church?
If I recall, the OT and the Gospels are full of miracles intended to prove that God is God with visible signs. God did not expect anyone to believe without eyewitness.
What? This is what the Gospels say:
John 20:29 : Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
I think God's expectations are very clear. He used miracles to show some, but to others He gave true faith without a use of the visuals. It doesn't make anyone a better person, it just means that He will bring all of His children to faith in the way He so desires.
You said: “The part that is serious is that they dare to evangelize Christians. I ask you by whose authority? Whose theology are the Protestants peddling in Christian Russia?”
Every saint who “peddles” the Gospel of Jesus Christ does so on His authority. It is not given to man to know who are saved; it is commanded to us to proclaim His Gospel. “Christian Russia” is as bizarre a term as “Christian Texas” - no country is Christian. Each has a cup full o’ pagans in every region.
And in Mat 5:14 He tells the crowds "You are the light of the world"?
Nope. He gave that authority to his Apostles, according to St. Matthew (and I emphasize according to). The only ones who can claim that authority are the apostolic successors (bishops). And, of all Apostles, St. Paul did the least of baptizing (apparentrly he wasn't aware of the great commission—probably because it wasn't written yet!)
Christian Russia” is as bizarre a term as “Christian Texas” - no country is Christian. Each has a cup full o’ pagans in every region
And every house has some hidden dirt. Would it be right for me to come into yours univited to look for it? There are whole nations that deny Christ (Jews); why not evangelazie them? Or 1.2 billion Muslims? Or most Polynesian natives?
What right do we have to shove Gosples down other peoples' throats? Probably the same "right" that the Muslims arrogate to convert the whole world to their religious madness! Because the Koran says so.
Try talking to a devout Muslim, and he will tell you the exact same thing. He believes the Koran as much as you believe the Chritsian Bible as much as a Jew rejects it and firmly believes that the true Scripture is only the Tanakh.
It's like someone asking "will the true believers" stand up and everyone stands up, a Christian, a Muslim, a Jew, a Hindu...they all claim and believe they are right and their scriputre is true.
So, don't tell me "Scripture is true" unless you can provide evidence to that effect other than your firm belief that it is. In which case have enough humility and say "I believe the Scripture is true."
How often are those signs, mentioned in Mark, in your local Orthodox congregation and to what extent
Never, ever. So, then, either the Orthodox are not believers or Mark is not telling the truth. But I have not seen these signs in any other Church or "church." There are people who masquarde as if they had the sings. People speak Klingon to make it look like they speak in "tongues," etc.
Now, there are people who claim visions, supernatural healing, and all that. I wasn't there, and I cannot be a witness. I do not deny that it is possible.
For instance, the incorruption of some saints' bodies is used as "proof" of their sainthood. What about all the other saints who disnitegrated after death? Does that mean they were not saints? And what about Indian gurus whose bodies remain intact? Does that mean they are actually saints?
IF you fail to answer the question this time, I shall intrpret that as wholesale obtuseness, disingenuousness and duplicity relative to your asking the question of others while being unwilling to answer the same question yourself
What makes you think that just because I ask questions I also have the answers? If I did, I wouldn't be asking for answers.
Additionally, I shall be selling my “shares of stock in ‘Kosta’s-useful-Scriptural-insight’” at a much reduced rate.
Why don't you. My pay is the same.
But don't you rely on just such "endless verses" to prove the authority of the Church?
Which verses say the Church has authority? Church authority comes from the Apostles who passed it on to their successors. The bible hints at that, and the Church documents this with earliest writings. From the beginning the Church had "elders" who were in authority.
Christ serves as an example of how we should try to be. The whole purpose of going to curch is not to read endless verses but to worship and praise God, to erepent and to try as much as possible to live a Christ-like life. It's a way of life, FK. It's not bible study. Anyone can do bible study.
But not anyone can live a Christ-like life. There are those who have memorized the bible and still don't live a life of Christ, and then there are those who couldn't quote a verse but could walk on water if they had to.
Those who believe means all those believe, not some, HD.
It also does not mention that you have to be baptized to be saved
No but it makes it very clear that the ones who believe and are baptized shall be saved. It also makes it clear that those who are baptized but do not believe will not be. This of course flies in the face of all the other "salvational formulas" one finds all over the NT. Take your pick.
No Christian who rightly understands and trusts God’s command to witness would shove the Gospel of Christ down anyone’s throat. Such tactics reveal a trusting in the one who witnesses rather than in the One Who saves.
We disagree on the issue of apostolic succession, but throughout the New Testament we see all Saints being told to witness - see 1 John 4 for example. This is what one would expects as a result of the Apostles obeying the Great Commission (which I think applies to all Christians).
One’s home is not the same as one’s country. If Christians did not go to any given country to proclaim the Gospel of Christ, that would testify of their lack of love for Him.
Verse 14. Are you going to tell me He means the crowd when He says "You are the light of the world?" Context, Dr. E, context.
Yet this error does fit with the absurd amount of power you invest in "other Christs."
First we Orthodox don't have "other Christs." Second, your opinion of the Church in this a particular instance doesn't is uirrelevant because this is my opinion as seen in context, and barating the Church on this occasion adds nothing to proving he was calling the crowd the 'light" of the world.
If you are looking for error, look not farther than the Protestant Deformation.
Have you read the concurrent verses in Luke 6?
The same way I read all of the bible. Luke says one thing and Matthew says another. That's why the chapters are not called "Matthew's Chapter accoridng to God" but simply "Accoridng to Matthew. There is a reason for that...it's Matthews version.
Try comapring Matthew's genealogy of Jospeh with Luke's. They can't even agree on Josphe's father's name, let alone the rest of the genealogy (different names and number of ancestors!). And Mark's "Great Commission" (the part that is not in older manuscripts, imagine that!), doesn't match Matthew's. That's how the whole bible is.
Cheer up, Kosta! God willing, Christ was addressing the Sermon on the Mount to you, too
I am cheerful, Dr. E. Despite all the "quirks" the Gospels do proclaim a beutiful message that, if followed, makes us and the whole world a lot nicer, and hopeful
I agree.
(which I think applies to all Christians).
I understand, but some think not.
One’s home is not the same as one’s country
Collectively yes. A ocuntry is a collective home for iots people.
If Christians did not go to any given country to proclaim the Gospel of Christ, that would testify of their lack of love for Him.
Not unless they are invited. Love does not impose itself. You don't go to anyone's home unless you are invited. No matter how much you may love your neighbors.
The way the term "Gnostic" is used around here I suspect the polar opposite would be "Empiricist."
An empiricist accepts as certain knowledge only that which is obtained by sensory perception, and to that he adds reason. He excludes Spiritual perception on principle.
Conversely, we Christians who have "ears to hear" accept only the words of God as certain knowledge. Sensory perception and reason are greatly subordinated. We walk by faith not by sight. (2 Cor 5:7)
Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world. They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them. We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error. - I John 4:4-6
Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned. - I Cor 2:12-14
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded [is] death; but to be spiritually minded [is] life and peace. Because the carnal mind [is] enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. – Romans 8:1-9
Christians who still have empiricist leanings - who are still living by sight instead of faith - accept or reject the words of God using mortal standards. For instance, an empiricist would exclude many Scriptures on the basis that, logically, every proposition must be true or false - it can't be both (the Law of the Excluded Middle.)
Thank you.
Interesting.
Well, I have observed and experienced such signs many times.
As I’ve noted many times on here . . . the rain on all four sides of drying hay but not on the hay when we lived in the mud hut and were poor as could be—desperately needing the hay.
But I won’t bother you with other examples. They are not likely to scratch the surface anyway.
Alamo-Girl mentions eyes to see and ears to hear. I find that’s often true about some miracles as it is about Scriptural meaning.
I didn’t realize the Orthodox club encouraged such a low view of Scripture. Quite hazardous, imho.
BTW, Pastor Henry Wright, having wrestled extensively ‘with God’ about why only 5% of those he prayed for were healed—now has a very high percentage of healings. I forget what percentage on average, now. Turns out it matters a LOT to God about whether folks LIVE according to THE WORD, or not—ESPECIALLY IN RELATIONSHIPS—with Him and others.
Seems to me . . . if claiming to be a Biblical Christian is such an intellectual challenge . . . perhaps it would be more consistent to become an atheist or Muslim. The verse about hot or cold comes to mind.
Even Assemblies of God, Four Square and Vineyard congregations all too often go through spells and certainly pastors where the gifts and manifestations of Holy Spirit’s miraculous workings are absent to largely absent. Must be something getting flawed with their beliefs and practices.
God doesn’t change.
Man’s nature hasn’t changed.
Man’s needs for God’s miraculous interventions don’t change.
Though I’ve noted that in cultures where folks are more rawly in need of help—miracles seem to occur much more as people have a much easier time accepting God’s word as GOD’S WORD. Where there’s an absence of seminaries/cemetaries to tell people what God CAN’T do/won’t do folks just tend to
TRUST GOD TO DO WHAT HE SAID HE WOULD DO . . . AND GOD AGREES DEMONSTRATIVELY.
And your point?
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.