Conclusion from Peru and Mexico

email from Randall Easter | 25 January 2008 | Randall Easter

[Dr. Eckleburg]

In my experience . . . discernment is both a gift and a spiritual 'muscle' that needs developed, learned.

How about this?

"Discernment is a gift of a spiritual 'muscle' from God to a member of His family which needs to be learned and developed, and by the grace of God through the Holy Spirit, it will be."

"For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

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.

But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ." -- 1 Corinthians 2:11-16

[Mad Dawg]

This is where I begin to wonder what the point of these threads is.

The works follow Faith. They reflect it.

I don't know a single thinking Catholic who thinks otherwise.

[Quix]

It’s not a “practice”.

= =

Really???

Soooooooooooo it’s a figment of EVERYONE’S imagination with ABSOLUTELY NO impact on actions, behaviors, rituals

AT ALL???

Goodness, learn something every day.

[Quix]

LOL.

What a LOT of pontifications!

I don’t really support Calvin’s resulting magicsterical, either.

I sure don’t support the RC’s . . . which is considerably MORE ARROGANT in a long list of ways . . . some of which you outlined and illustrated quite well.

Thanks.

[Quix]

Much agree. Thanks.

[MarkBsnr]

No, I asked you to name the churches that were outside of the Church. Each Church was set up by a missionary or Bishop of that area and each was subordinate to that Bishop.

The Bishop of Rome (Peter) was considered first among equals, as Peter was the first among equals of the Apostles.

***The body of believers is the ONE TRUE CHURCH but no use in telling you that since you believe the heretical Roman church has that distinction.***

Interesting, since the Catholic Church itself defines heresy. Where did it declare itself in heresy?

[MarkBsnr]

***Since from the text we learn the crowds followed Him up the mountain and then back down the mountain, it certainly seems likely He knew His entire audience.***

Knew His entire audience? What does that mean?

They didn’t have high powered speaker systems in those days; if one did not possess iron lungs and stand with arms and legs akimbo such as the Shakepearean veterans did, one would not reach the full extent of one’s audience especially if it numbered in the thousands. Sitting on a rock does not lend itself to audibility to the crowds.

Just as there are passages where Jesus speaks directly to Peter, with the others overhearing, thus Jesus speaks to His disciples, with those nearby overhearing.

[Quix]

Much agree. Thanks.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

It means Christ knew the crowds that followed Him were listening and thus, they, too, were His audience.

I think the fact some people believe the Sermon on the Mount wasn't intended to be received by the ears of all believers is really really strange. Talk about elitism and exclusion.

I know movies aren't Scripture, but have you ever seen the movie, "King of Kings" with Jeffrey Hunter? It illustrates how Christ was speaking to the crowds on the sermon on the mount. And it didn't look like any of them had a problem hearing Him. It makes sense He would walk upwards on the mountain, in order to better project His voice to the eager throng who came to listen and learn from Him.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Please don't post such long comments to me. Linking is our friend.

Such long comments overload my web-tv and I can't read any of it. Thanks.

[Marysecretary]

I went a bit further in my Matthew on the Mount series and it did mention that there were crowds of people there. M

[Marysecretary]

Your church never will define itself as heresy because it thinks everybody else’s church is. LOL.

[Marysecretary]

Absolutely. Many people do great works, even as unbelievers, but they don’t have Christ. Works without faith is dead. Faith without works is dead. God makes that very clear. But I don’t believe He meant that you had to have works to be saved.

[MarkBsnr]

***I think the fact some people believe the Sermon on the Mount wasn’t intended to be received by the ears of all believers is really really strange. Talk about elitism and exclusion.***

No doubt. There is the role of clergy and there is the role of laity. If one takes on the role of clergy, then there are many things that one must take on above and beyond the role of laity.

Not everyone’s role is the same; neither is everyone’s gifts from God the same.

[MarkBsnr]

***Works without faith is dead. Faith without works is dead.***

By phrasing it like this, May I assume that you are claiming that they are equivalent?

If they are, then your statement immediately following:

***But I don’t believe He meant that you had to have works to be saved.***

does not follow.

[MarkBsnr]

***Your church never will define itself as heresy because it thinks everybody else’s church is.***

It’s not my Church. It’s God’s.

The Church defines heresy in terms of theology. If somebody or institution fits the bill on one or more, then so be it.

[hosepipe]

[ (The assumption is another doctrine altogether, Oh wait, you mean ...) ]

LoL...

[hosepipe]

[ There may be an indication I'm not able to see that you understand the doctrine, but I sure don't see it. "Flesh"? Precluding the spiritual work of the Spirit, when the "body" in question is a "spiritual body"? ]

We seem to talking on two different wavelengths.. Thats o.k. happens here all the time.. Thats what, he that has ears to hear, then let him hear.. is all about.. There may be things we both see tha same, and others our observation posts show differently.. I am ok with that too.. Actually I've noticed thats the way it has always has been.. from the beginning.. Very obvious on this and other threads too.. Can we all get along?.. Answer: sometimes..

[Forest Keeper]

FK: ***It is true that we do not relate to Him on an infinite level, but we do relate to Him on a personal level, as God. On an infinite level, we are simply part of His creation, like rocks and trees. But on a personal level we are separated from the rest of His creation. We can actually have a personal relationship with Him.***

I think that you might be mixing up the personal touch and interaction with Jesus the man with the impersonal and largely standoffish and angry God of the OT. Part of Jesus’ mission to us was to provide that.

I'm not sure what there is to mix up. Jesus interacted with men on a personal level, and the God of the OT did the same. Are they different Gods? Of course not. God exercised His justice in the OT, but He also showed His love for His children as well. How many chances did He give the Jews? Seventy times seven, etc.? :) He disciplined them out of His profound and very personal love for them. The OT God is very personal.

FK: ***The alternative would be an impersonal God, whom we would experience as unknowable, irrational, and subject to chance. No personal relationship would be possible and man would be left unfulfilled.***

Exactly. That’s what the Jews experienced throughout the OT.

How can you say that? The evidence shows just the opposite. Do you think Job would have remained faithful to an irrational God after being through what he went through? No way. All of the OT righteous had personal relationships with God. It's right there in the text.

FK: ***Before there was a creation there was the Trinity.***

There was no ‘before’. God existed, exists and will exist at all moments in time.

Please reread. Creation was an event in real time. There was a time before creation.

FK: ***Without a personal God we would just be rats wandering randomly through a maze.***

A ‘personal’ God in many cases is one that an individual creates.

That has nothing to do with the truth or not of whether the one true God is personal and rational or impersonal and irrational.

FK: ***We belong to Him and no one can snatch us out of His hands.***

We can, however, walk away.

If you are "one" then you are saying you can snatch yourself out of God's hands. The scripture forbids this. Man's need to be independent and powerful causes additions to the scriptures, also forbidden by the scriptures. Your Catechism says that God conveyed what He wanted to convey in the Bible. How meaningless the Bible is since it doesn't include the countless number of exceptions that your tradition adds.

[irishtenor]

I might add...

By their fruits you shall know them. Are they exhibiting the fruits of the Spirit? Is their life an example of Christ? Are they a light shining in the darkness?