Conclusion from Peru and Mexico

email from Randall Easter | 25 January 2008 | Randall Easter

[kosta50]

All I mean by this [All of [Christ's] actions were predestined by God] is that God does not make things up as He goes along

FK, again I will say it is strange that you say this because it is subordinating Christ, making Him something other than God. That's why I asked if this peculiar view is something common to Protestant/Baptist christology. You agreed and I suspected that much.

Kosta: everyone was "saved" in a sense that everyone was offered a ticket to eternity who wanted it

FK: That renders the word "saved" to be meaningless, at least in the English

Before Christ no one had a way out. Every one was lost. After Christ, everyone was offered a way out. It's not English, but Protestant mindset.

According to Reformed thbeology, those who were saved by Christ were already saved from all eternity and not by anything that happened chronologically.

Paul preached that salvation is had by grace through faith, and NOT by works

And Christ didn't!!!

Kosta: Forced conversion? Forced love?

FK: I don't look at it that way, but if the choice was between that and relying on my inner goodness and how super smart I am to make the right decisions, do

Oh, that just sounds wonderful, except it has nothing to do with smarts but with ability to love, and to love God more than anything else.

I'll take being forced any day of the week. I would never be able to effect my own salvation the way you all do

Forced "love" is really rape; it's no love at all. Christ certainly does not preach forced "love."

We all know that it is possible for perfectly good Christians to have temporary lapses in faith

Is that God's doing too?

Peter proclaims Jesus to be "the Christ, the Son of the living God". This was a confession of Jesus' diviity

No it wasn't. "Son of God" is the Old Testament title for angels and Israel's kings, those who were favoirtes of God. There is nothing divine in that title. Messiah was supposed to be a man who would be king and favored by God, anointed (which is messiah means). Likewise, the term "Lord" is not only a divine title, but indicative of someone who is over you.

But then later, Peter denies Him and scatters at the time of the crucifixion. Was Peter lying? No, because Jesus validates the statement as having been revealed by the Father

Peter believed that Jesus was the Messiah, but when he saw Jesus arrested and tortured, he lost his faith, got scared and believed he was mistaken. He probably expected Jesus to smite his enemies as the OT would have it happen. But it didn't happen, so Peter backtracked.

What Jesus said, verifying Peter's statement was true. Peter spoke, thinking one thing, without realizing what he actually said. He spoke the words, but did not connect the dots.

[kosta50]

Accurate according to the words and meaning of the source of the quote

Is there such a thing when it comes to scriptures?

[kosta50]

Infant baptism was practiced by the earliest Christians. It is a Sacrament and it does not require "age of reason" any more than the Eucharist does. Eastern Churches administer the Eucharist to children as well as adults.

Orthodox baptism involves immersing three times (baptiso means repeatedly and affecting permanent change, as opposed to bapto which means once) for obvious reasons (Father, Son, Hoy Spirit), immediately followed by the seal (chrism).

Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation. One is not brought into the Church unless he or she is baptized. As Christians, we are commanded to baptize (please tell St. Paul!), no ifs and buts about it.

If God wants to save unbaptized people that's His prerogative. Not ours.

Besides, Presbyterians also baptize their infants.

The oldest Christian graves show that many of the deceased were infants. The inscriptions found on their tombstones leave little doubt that they were "servants of God."

[kosta50]

No, I must remember that Jesus left us the Holy Spirit and the Scriptures

He did not leave us scriptures. That's a Protetsant superstition.

[kosta50]

I mean cash under the table stuff, like small landscaping/lawn care, small diner cooks, mom and pop motel work, and drug smuggling

Even that can become "hazardous" for some businesses if the law is enforced. But there is much opposition and 12-13 million illegals are quickly becoming an essential part of our economy. The consequences of this will be felt by our children. And we may experience the consequences of potential terrorists slipping inot the country through our porous borders while our leaders keep increaisng airport secuirty.

[hosepipe]

[ He did not leave us scriptures. That's a Protetsant superstition. ]

Then Jesus is not God?.. (you say)..

[kosta50]

The only ones who will "recognize Christ in them" are those whom have been likewise given eyes to see and ears to hear by God alone

It's not the "hearing" and "seeing" that matters, but what you do with them.

[kosta50]

Dr. E to Mark: Weren't you one of the RCs awhile back who peculiarly asserted that the Sermon on the Mount was only spoken to the apostles and not to the "throngs" who had assembled with them to hear Jesus speak?

No I did. And I still do. One does not address the crowds sitting down.

[kosta50]

If it is possible that what the Apostles wrote later was not consistent with what they preached before, then the Apostles cannot be trusted. Apostolic succession would fall apart for that reason alone

The Apostles did not from the beginning believe one and the same thing. That much is certain. They do not lie when they make that obvious in their writngs. We all grow in faith, and the Apostles were no different in that regard. Their faith was not "downloaded" complete and indexed as St. Pauls seems to claim. GThey did not really have a clear concept of just who Jesus, and their faith was not exactly rock-solid until much later.

I'm sure John's theology grew, as it does with all of us, but I maintain that his original oral teachings were consistent with his later writings

If they were, they are nothing like the teachings of others.

Your Church could have been wrong on several things, as well as other churches. Perhaps the Church that was closest to being right was stamped out by a more powerful one

Then what you believe as far as the Holy Trinity, Christology and the Bible are concerned is posisbly wrong.

Trouble is, there is no record of any other "church." As early as 105 +Ignatius speaks of the "catholic Church." All other "churches" in those days differed from the catholic Church in that their disputed or denied one or more aspects of the Holy Trinity, Christology, and scriptre (e.g. Marcion).

[Quix]

No I did. And I still do. One does not address the crowds sitting down.

= = =

Have you been there?

I have.

Would have been very easy for him to sit and address the crowds—just sitting on the upper side of the hill.

Had he been sitting on a prominent rock, all the easier.

I continue to be amazed at your . . . unique . . . perspectives on Biblical, historical and geographical realities.

[kosta50]

My position remains that the scriptures self-authenticate

Baseless conjecture lackng any objective proof.

When Paul speaks of "his gospel" he is perfectly clear that he is not speaking of some gospel that he made up. No, he is speaking only of that Gospel that was given to him personally by Christ

Makes you wonder why did He choose the eleven others who were on a dead-end mission to the lost sheep of Israel.

It's nice of +Paul to tell us that "his gospel" is what was given to him "personally" by Christ, but it is not what Christ taught when He was walking the earth. I doubt that Christ changed His story.

Again, if Christ needed to get another Apostle in the likes of +Paul, to disseminate the gospel, then He left His work was not finished by His death and Resurrection and His mission was not accomplished. It stands to reason that after Christ nothing can top Him, nothing can be added to His completed work; no new revelations could be made, lest Christ be made imperfect.

I am fine with "inspired", but I like "God-breathed" better. I think that better describes what is actually going on

Same meaning, that is moved, motivated, etc.

[kosta50]

I continue to be amazed at your . . . unique . . . perspectives on Biblical, historical and geographical realities

Well, be amazed then. He addreessed the disciples: "His disciples came to him, and he began to teach them saying" (Mat 5:1-2).

Again, one does not address crowds by sitting down.

[kosta50]

Kosta: He [jesus] did not leave us scriptures. That's a Protetsant superstition.

Hosepipe: Then Jesus is not God?.. (you say)..

Huh? He left without handing out the Bibles.

[hosepipe]

[ Huh? He left without handing out the Bibles. ]

Oh! I see what you meant.. sorry..
The old testament was enshrined in the synagogue then as it is now..
The Jews had/have a virtual shrine you know.. (as a scroll)
At least the Torah.. but prosperous community's had the prophets..

The first christians were Jews and the Gospel was repeated verbally much like the old testament was.. Still is in China where the word of god is almost contraband.. People are jailed for trafficking in it..

That being said, Jesus was and is the Word of God..
The Logos is one thing, the Rhema is quite another..

[stfassisi]

Kosta to FK-Forced "love" is really rape; it's no love at all. Christ certainly does not preach forced "love."

Exactly!

[kosta50]

The first christians were Jews and the Gospel was repeated verbally much like the old testament was

There is a difference between 'revealed' faith that patriarchs and prophets wrote about, and Christ's ministry on earth witnessed by the Apostles who then wrote (decades later) what they actually saw or heard either in person or from those who were there. There is a difference between what we see 'inside' and what we perceive outside.

But, regardless, God did not give us the Scriptures. He never commanded His disciples to write down what He said. In the case of the Torah, the Jews believe,m and in the case of the Koran, the Muslims believe that God dictated the books word-by-word to Moses and Mohammad. Sure...

Suppsoedly guided by the Holy Spirit, the humans wrote, and it was the hierarchy of the Church recognized, selected, safeguarded, sorted out and canonized the Scriptures. I know this must be difficult for you to swallow, but then the alternative is to throw out the Bible along with the Church.

[kosta50]

Well, I don't pray a lot for terrible things to happen to me, if that's what you mean

You didn't answer my question, counselor. You deflected it to put it mildly. You and others on your side keep telling me that God tests people, not for His but for their benefit.

I asked you specifically and others in general: if you are 100% secure in your salvation (and therefore faith) why would you benefit by being tested like Job was (and he was 'blameless')?

If God tests blameless people, what benefit do they get unless it is indented to strengthen their faith? In which case you are not secure in your faith and salvation as you say you are.

Again, there was no point in testing Jesus, unless there was some 'benefit' that He would 'gain' from it as far as His faith is concerned, since there was no chance that He would fail.

But it makes perfect sense if Jesus is seen by the early Apostles to be the Jewish messiah, a mortal human, beloved of God, a favorite of God, the "son of God," like the angels and kings, a man who would be king of kings (on earth), blameless and perfect (like Job)!

And it would make perfect sense that He would be led into the Desert by the Power (Spirit) of God, as the bible teaches (God doesn't need to be led by His own Spirit!). All this points strongly to Jesus being considered a special, if not perfect human, an ideal man (which he is!), but not God!

Clearly, the Apostles recognized His divinity at a later date and realized that the words they used (e.g. "son of God") which they understood in the Old Testament manner, were words with a new meaning.

[Mad Dawg]

In a no doubt doomed effort to give a SUGGESTION (and suggestion only) of how the irresistibility of grace can be seen as a bestowal of freedom rather than a deprivation, I offer the following.

It's Christmas Eve, children, beds, sugar-plums --- and you're down under the tree with some nifty new thing for the kiddies. After 90 minutes of trying to assemble it and having it not work repeatedly, parts left over, etc. you can no longer be said to be free in any meaningful sense. Among the many desires coursing in your ind (like, consigning to eternal fire the maker of the item in question) no good one can be fulfilled.

Then an angel, or maybe your wife recovers the instructions from the wastepaper basket where you, being a very manly man, have tossed them without opening.

The Hebrew for instructions, by the way, is Torah. Just sayin'.

Sullenly you consent to lower yourself to leaf through the manual, and ... suddenly, you GET it!

The Torah, plus some action seemingly external to you, leads to illumination. Before you lies the fulfillment of your desire to complete the toy before the parousia and you are so relieved that you even whisper a brief prayer of contrition for all the things you wanted to do to the manufacturer and you actually, in words audible by natural means, apologize to your wife for snapping at her.

Now, I suggest that at that moment it never occurs to you to go back to the unenlightened, pre-torah state, to throw the instructions away and to try it your own way. It does not feel like a loss of freedom, it feels like the GIFT of freedom.

This is an inadequate, though rich, example of something being given which objectively constricts our choices but which is experienced not as rape but as freedom.

[hosepipe]

Suppsoedly guided by the Holy Spirit, the humans wrote, and it was the hierarchy of the Church recognized, selected, safeguarded, sorted out and canonized the Scriptures. I know this must be difficult for you to swallow, but then the alternative is to throw out the Bible along with the Church.

You’re correct I do not swallow that.. The Rabbis vouched safe the old testament in various forms.. The New testement codices were saved from various places.. and times.. And Roman Catholic and Eastern Ortho organizations were started hundreds of years after christs so-called “death”... A contant stream of apostles did not happen.. Its a myth promulgated by various clergy.. that some people swallow some do not..

http://www.freepres.org/papacy/index.asp

[Mad Dawg]

Everyone who has said, "I Love you, will you marry me," and gotten an answer in the affirmative knows that we can enthusiastically and sincerely speak words whose meanings we will not understand for decades.

With that preamble, I suggest that the early confession of the Church was, "Jesus is Lord (kyrios)." (And Kyrios has distinct overtones in the OT reading community of the name which must not be said.)

The Church made the good confession, and then spent centuries -- may even be said still to be spending time, figuring out what it meant. It was "always believed" but what the believed thing meant was worked out over time.

Similarly, Harley, with the presence of Christ in the Sacrament. If, for kicks, we stipulate that the language of Justin and of others asserts a (non-capitalized, not in quotes) real presence of Christ in the Sacrament, then the delay of the declaration of Transubstantiation is not materially different from a grandparent saying, "Now I begin to see what I meant when I said, 'I do.' "