Posted on 01/27/2008 7:56:14 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
No, God gives faith. The words of God (Bible) tell us what that faith is in:
Rom 10:17 : Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ.
Faith cannot be in nothingness. It has to be in the Gospel, the words of God. That doesn't make the Bible God, but it does make it His power to be used.
There is absolutely nothing in Job 1:1 to suggest it is a man's POV. It is stated as truth, a matter of fact that Job is perfect (blameless), that he feared God and that he shunned (eschewed) evil. Fearing God is consistent with an unpright believer.
So, Christ's death on the cross was just mechanics? You do realize if this continues I will be bold? :)
No, I just mean in COMPARISON to what was ordained. Christ's death on the cross was NEVER an issue of "will it happen/won't it happen". It was sealed in stone from the foundations. Jesus KNEW that because he prophesied about it!!! :)
Are you now saying that the Reformed God didn't create evil and used it for His "plan?" I am confused.
I have always said that God did not "create" evil. It is your side that insists that is what we think. So, that part is all on you guys. However, God DOES use the evil of others for His own purposes. That much is Reformed.
FK: "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 Christian sense. No one worshiped or prayed to Jesus afterwords as God-Incarnate. But +Peter did say the truth without realizing it fully.
How in the universe could God bless Peter, knowing that Peter had no idea what he was talking about? If Peter was all wrong, how could God bless that? That's impossible. You have God BLESSING error in understanding!!! :) Does that really work for you?
I am asking for an authentication of your "proof." How do I know that your "proof" is authentic? You offer me scriptures but when asked to authenticate them you tell me the scriptures authenitcate themselves (of course "if you have eyes and ears." Anyone can say that; it doesn't mean it's a proof).
Yours is a blind faith, so perhaps you believe "just because" or "just because the Church says".
If you can't provide proof, then your faith is blind as well. And so far you have not been able to demonstrate anything but a private faith.
Ours is a reasoned faith
Everyone's faith is reasoned, FK, even the blind faith. Faith is actually rationalized more than reasoned. In other words, we come up with plausible explanations for something we don't understand.
If faith were were reasoned it would be logical. Incarnation and angels are not logical. Gravity is not logical. The world, as it is, the universe, is not logical to human mindset. We really don't knwo how and why all this exists. We only believe we know.
God gives faith, but He uses tools such as the Bible to give that faith meaning.
Through books written by men and presumed (believed) to be inspired?!?
The Bible explains what exactly our faith is in, and that it can (does) make sense to us
I agree. The Bible tells us what we believe. It doesn't do it exactly because there are variations and disagreements in interpretations. But the fact that the Bible is a collection of books that describes what we believe in doesn't mean it is true.
Hense I ask for proof that it is.
Ah, I did not know that "catholic" meant an impersonal God. I thought that was just your take. Fascinating
Catholic means universal. It's not a private interpretation or a personal faith. It's not your God either. Not in the possessive sense.
I've seen what is left after some of this "cleansing" is done. Not pretty. It is unrecognizable compared to what the Bible teaches
What you call a bible is a sanitized man-made version of a bunch of scraps put together, presumed to be written by the authors it claims, and believed to be "inspired."
And which books are inspired is a matter of human decision too. The Samaritans, like the Sadducees, believe only the Torah was inspired. They still have a gemple and and high priesthood and animal sacrifices, so if you ever wnated to know ancoent Judaism there is your chance. There are about 700 of them left.
The Apostles believed some books the Protestants reject must have been good enough to be quoted as inspired. And +Jude quotes from the Book of Enoch which was never canonized but nonetheless finds its ways in the NT being quoted as scripture.
And, I agree, there are parts of the bible that are not pretty at all, and there is no Christ to be found in them...
MD, your analysis is good and perceptive, as always.
I cannot come in wholeheartedly on kosta's side because while I do try to stay abreast of what's going on in literary, historical, and form criticism, I think maybe I tend to say,"Well, the Church says the Bible is da Bomb, it's what God gave us, so I'm going to assume that even in all the killing of pregnant women and such there is some truth for me to find there," while I think Kosta is more wholesale in discounting some of that stuff
Right again. The problem is the Church doesn't explain how God-ordered killing of pregnant women is ties in with the Gospels. I do defer to the Church but I also ask the church to show me the Beatitudes in God-ordered killings of pregnant women.
As an adult type person (allegedly) I haven't thought that Jonah or Job were actual histories. I DO think they are inspired stories. That means that one can learn from Jonah that it don't pay to mess with God, and HE will go to extraordinary means to accomplish His will in your life
Thank you. I couldn't agree more. But our Protestant friends will remind you that Jesus spoke of Jonah as if it were an actual story. Hence, "Houston, we have a problem..."
And from Job I learn, well, not enough. It is extremely profound. But what I took away from it was that if I get angry at God, I should tell him
First, we have no reason to be angry with God, ever. Second, if we do, we need to repent, not just tell him. What's more important is that we repent in our heart and never get angry with God again, than to verbalize it.
If all I am is a jerk, I should bring my jerkiness to God, wholeheartedly, nothing held back, and God will finally come in His terrifying mercy and graciously, kindly, and lovingly show me what a jerk I am and how wonderful He is. And my conceit is an infinitesimally cheap price to pay for the wonder of a theophany.
The idea of theosis is to realize what jerks we are and to evolve into something Christ-like precisely through such pedagogic epiphanies.
We didn't have an Orthodox "Trent" and, like the Jews, the Eastern Church never formally canonized the scripture. The scriptures are what the Church, in time, come to regard as canon.
As it turns out, the non-binding local (Third, African) Council of Carthage at the end of the 4th century canonized the books of the Bible which included all the "Apocryphal" books, as well as the books we currently use, including the Book of Revelation and the entire Church accepted this on their own.
The Eastern Church, however, did not accept Revelation until the 9th century. This posed absolutely no problem with the West. No Ecumenical (General, binding) Councils of the Undivided Church (first 11 centuries) ever proclaimed the canon. The first "ecumenical" council that did was the Council of Trent, and it is binding only to the Western Church (for starters, we never used Vulgate).
This is simply the classic "if man is not in control and leading God, then God causes evil" red herring. You are free to accept the claims of Islam as being potentially equally true to those of Christianity. That is your choice. I suppose if one's faith is blind, then why not? With no foundation for faith, then Islam really shouldn't be any better or worse than any other faith. We, of course, do not look at it that way because we do have a foundation for our faith.
As I noted in my last post, God uses the evil of others for the greater good of His plan. I know you probably think that all the events that had to come together for Jesus to be able to sacrifice Himself for us were probably just a huge collection of accidents, a huge collection of individual free will choices that by chance just happened to come together so that today we may be saved. I, of course, say that the whole thing was orchestrated by God because He loves us and would not leave anything to chance when it came to the salvation of His children. I don't believe in luck, but I know that many do, and even base their faiths on it.
The problem with that analogy is that everything is scripted and the actors are not saying anything of their own but simply playing out their assigned act.
There is no freedom in it and if there is no freedom then our sin is only an act, which makes it a necessary part of the choreography of the Heavenly Broadway Show, indeed a divine soap opera.
That, in an off itself, would not be bad. The bad part comes in when we find out that the actors, who were obeidently acting out their assigned roles, are convicted of them and some are even thrown in jail for all eternity!
In other words, we are led to believe that we are actually responsible for what we do because it is not an act preordained by God but our choice. And we bear full responsibility for it.
So, what did Abraham believe in? What message did he hear? What scripture did he read? What about the Canaanite woman?
Faith cannot be in nothingness. It has to be in the Gospel, the words of God
So, then Abraham and the Canaanite woman believed in "nothingness?" Or are you using the word "Gospel" in a personalized, let's be nice and use MadDawg's expresison, "imprecise" way as well?
FK, no one said anything about "will/will not." Your statement says "Whatever God has ordained is as good as already done. The rest is mechanics." That makes Crucifixion simply "mechanics."
I have always said that God did not "create" evil
If God did not create evil in your theology who did? Was it not the Reformed God's will that evil exist? I remind you of your own words "Whatever God has ordained is as good as already done. The rest is mechanics."
How in the universe could God bless Peter, knowing that Peter had no idea what he was talking about?
None of the apostles knew who Jesus was at that time. Calling Him the "Son of the living God" (true) did not have the same connotation in the Jewish mindset. That was simply a title of the (Jewish) Messiah (but also of Israel's kings, angels and Adam). But that was progress! Again, I remind you that even as Christ was ready to ascend into heaven, only some of the eleven worshiped him, and even then some doubted him! (cf Mat 28:17)
You can't have it both ways, FK. We can't be living under a delusion of freedom if everything we do is God's will. Worse, we can't be condmened for something that was preordained before we even existed.
If we are simply actors in God's divine soap opera, then we are simply acting out the script and our roles are not real us, nor are our words "our" words.
The fact that God in the Bible holds us repsonsible for our acts and words means that they are not his but ours. If they are in harmony with God's will, they are good. If they are contrary to God's will they are evil. That can be true only if they are our choices, not God's.
I don't mean a HollyWierd production silly.. I mean a spiritual video tape of your life.. and events surrounding your life.. Is your life scripted?.. or does it just happen.. according to your choices?.. The actors in your life are neither scripted nor casted, "probably".. UNLESS most people you run into are PUT THERE by God.. INCLUDING ME..
In which case, be careful boy, my message might just be cooked up just for you.. You know, to stimulate your imagination.. (removing glasses) tapping fingers..
For the word of the LORD [is] right; and all his works [are done] in truth. He loveth righteousness and judgment: the earth is full of the goodness of the LORD. By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses. Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him. For he spake, and it was [done]; he commanded, and it stood fast. – Psalms 33:4-9
God reveals the end from the beginning.
Will we never learn? Even wave/particle duality stands as evidence against such presumptions.
Love God. Believe Him. Trust Him.
To God be the glory!
What you consider an extreme weltanschaaung we consider to be an essential doctrine of Scripture. The Scriptures often divides people and doctrine into two classes, antithetically related. There are the sons of Cain and of Seth (Gen. 4-6), Israel and the nations (Ex. 19:5-6), the righteous and the wicked (Ps. 1), the wise and the foolish (Prov. 1:7), the saved and the lost (Matt. 18:11), the children of Abraham and those of the devil (John 8:39-44), the elect and the nonelect (Rom. 9), believers and unbelievers (1 Cor. 6:6), practitioners of the wisdom of the world and of the wisdom of God (1 Cor. 1-2), those who walk in light and those who walk in darkness (1 John 1:5-10), the church and the world (1 John 2:15-17).
A persons worldview is their basic hearts commitment that governs their life. The Scripture is clear that you either commit to Jesus and bring all thoughts captive to him (2 Cor 5:10) or your committed to something else, namely paganism. There is no neutrality. Liberal Christianity is, for instances, another religon because it denies all the basic doctrines of Christianity while trying to hold to the form. It is in essence pantheism. It is God manifesting and developing himself in successive stages of the finite either by means of ethical progression or even material progression, as in Darwinism.
Rome, otoh, is actually a synergism of Christianity and Paganism. While holding to the basic doctrines of Christianity it adds pagan symbolism to the mix. Where Pagan symbolism is mixed with the doctrines of God known only through his revelation there is always a watering down of that revelation. The great Dutch theologian Abraham Kuyper described the antithesis with great clarity a century ago.
Now here is the very point at which the want of Symbolism announced itself. Every one who, moving in the finite, becomes aware of the existence of something Infinite, has to form a conception of the relation that exists between both. Here two possibilities present themselves. Either the Infinite reveals itself to man, and by this revelation unveils the really existing relation; or the Infinite remains mute and silent, and man himself has to guess, to conjecture, and to represent to himself this relation by means of his imagination; that is, in an artificial way. Now the first line is the Christian one. The Infinite at sundry times and in divers manners spoke in times past by the prophets, and in these late days has spoken to us by his Son—this Son being not a silent mystery, but the eternal, creating and speaking Word. Paganism, on the contrary, being destitute of revelation, wants the symbol, and creates it in its idols, “having mouths but they speak not, having ears but they hear not.” Symbol means a fictitious link between the invisible Infinite and the visible finite. It is derived from sumballein; i.e., bringing two different spheres together. Symbolism is the grasping of something outward and material, upon which the imagination may put the stamp of the unseen and unspeakable. The symbol is the middle link, being related from one side to what you can see and grasp, and from the other side to what you feel, fancy and imagine. As soon, therefore, as the consciousness of the Infinite revives in the public mind, in antagonism to a God-given Revelation, the demand for the symbol necessarily and immediately declares itself. So it was in the Grecian world, so it is now. Of course there exists also an unconscious, ever-changing relation between the Infinite and the finite in the actual phenomena of life; but this relation, being always partial, successive and momentarily gauged, cannot satisfy the soul. What she is longing after is a comprehensive impression of the Infinite in its totality, in its all-pervading and all-permeating action; and this sensation no finite phenomenon is able to stir in us, just because it is finite. What the soul want to realize is a grasping of the Infinite as such; and such an infinite sensation Symbolism only can produce, just because it puts an invisible stamp upon a visible or palpable phenomenon. In the Freemasonry you see quite the same thing. Freemasonry aims at the Infinite, but rejects all revelation, and therefore it created from the very first, and still advocates, the most explicit and elaborated symbolism. Spiritism, on the contrary, is almost choked with thirst for revelation from the other side of the tomb, and consequently knows of no symbolical fancy whatsoever.
So Revelation and Symbolism are opposed one to the other by principle. Both have in view to establish a perceivable relation between the Infinite and the finite, but they are so diametrically opposed, that by the means of Revelation it is the infinite Being himself who unveils and stipulates the relation to be accepted by the finite creature by faith: — and that, on the other hand, on the field of Symbolism, it is the finite man who conventionally coins such a relation symbolically, to be grasped not by faith, but by sensation. Now the fact that German pantheism rejects and repudiates every supernatural revelation, no one will deny. From the very beginning its war has been waged against every dogma, every confession, and every divine authority ascribed to the Holy Scriptures. The idea itself of a God intervening in the process of history was absolutely excluded; yea, even thrust out and debarred. According to the panta rei, the Infinite, strictly bound to the revealing of its essence in the course of successive events, could only throb and pulsate in the arteries of the cosmos and in man’s soul. But, besides that, it had to be silent and mute as the idol. In the all-embracing antithesis between Revelation and Symbolism, therefore, the current opinion of the day could not but antagonize Revelation and side with Symbolism. And here Philosophy and Art found their natural alliance—Philosophy, by its oneness of systematical conception, raising the mind to the Infinite, and Art, by the wonderful power of its imaginative gifts, creating the corresponding symbols.
Such is the bifurcation of the way of life at the approaching close of this century. There are two crossing tracks. Pointing to the orient, there is the old track of faith in a God-given Revelation, excluding every “will-worship.” But this old track now is crossed by the new road of Symbolism, boldly exhibiting the word: Will-worship on every guidepost till its end. And such an all-important fact as the thriving of such a cross-purpose antithesis cannot stop its diverging result within the holy precincts. It must lead necessarily to opposite conclusions and issues, both for our social and political, our moral and scientific views. A fact which becomes self-evident by the simple observation that Revelation reveals not only holy mysteries, but also proclaims irrevocable principles and immutable ordinances demanding obedience; and that, on the contrary, under the sway of Symbolism all principles are man’s own contrivances, and all moral ordinances self-made and conventional. The jurist in the symbolical camp does not hesitate publicly to declare that there is no right except that which is stated by the promulgated law, and that, therefore, what was right today becomes injustice tomorrow, as soon as that law is repealed.
No doubt, therefore, this all important and dominating antithesis should clearly have been caught by every student, and Symbolism at once antagonized by every Christian man, if in our actual life it had made its appearance in its absolute form. This, however, was nowhere the case at the rise of such a new tide. Even Freemasonry borrowed its symbols from the then existing church building corporations, and took care to hide its real meaning behind the mysterious curtain of successively higher degrees. So Symbolism always likes to unfold its full blossom only in its esoteric circle, and exoterically prefers the life of the parasite, stealthily entering its radicles into the delicate rind of the Christian stem. Accommodation to existing religion has always been its leading thought, and this accommodation it achieved at once by taking as poetry what the church confesses as the highest reality, by attaching to the holy history the alluring character of the legend and the myth, and finally by interpreting its actions of worship as mere symbolical utterances. I still remember how once I felt shocked by the church performances of a distinguished adherent of the new system, who in private conversation made no secret whatsoever to me of his absolute apostasy of the old Christian faith, and whom three days later I saw mounting the pulpit, solemnly reading what in the Book of the Kings is written about Elias’ miracles, and thereupon leading the collects of the common prayer. I confess frankly that I felt unable to explain such a bold contrast of personal conviction and outward performance. I thought it the essence of insincerity. But how greatly I was mistaken. “O, no, said he, there was no unfairness whatever. What do you think? Would it be unfair, if taking part in the play of your children, you performed, as earnestly as the little ones, the part of king which your boy had assigned you. What hypocrisy, then, could there be in one playing and singing with the children of God, as they call themselves, and of partaking in their worship? Of course if we ourselves considered all those performances as real, we could not join in them. But now, what, I ask you, could prevent us from enjoying your Christian high-styled poetry, or from ennobling our own feelings by partaking in your elaborate symbolics? Even the holy supper to me is a symbolical delicacy. It is these very church performances that unite the more childlike existence of the ordinary people with the more conscious and cultured life of the scientists.”
Hence the preference, which in the opinion of these modern symbolists, the Roman Catholic Church possesses above the Protestant, and among our various denominations the Episcopalian above the Presbyterian, in all its branches. Already in the first half of this century the so-called Romantic school in Germany led to the conversion of a great many famous Lutheran scholars and artists to the Church of Rome; and this can not surprise us. As with the solution of every vital problem, Rome’s strength lies in her compromise. Rome understood perfectly well the two different principles involved in the antithesis between Revelation and Symbolism, and avoiding, as always, every absolute choice, kept to the Revelation in her confession, but at the same time indulged in Symbolism for her worship. So Rome possesses an elaborate dogmatical system, but without troubling the mind of the people by it. The church thinks for the people, theirs is the “fides implicita” the implicit faith. In that “implicit faith” to adhere to the church is considered to be satisfactory for the laity. And thus the Revelation being secured, clergy and laity both are allowed to indulge in the most exquisite, most splendid, and most artistic symbolical worship. The impression of a high-mass performance in the Saint Peter's, or in the Cologne or Milan cathedral is indeed overpowering and overwhelming. But the shady side is obvious, and at the end of the middle ages, the lower as well as the higher class could witness, to what sad results both for the church and for society, this compromise between Revelation and Symbolism had led. I do not refer here to the abuse. From abuse every system has to suffer. I draw your attention merely to what, at the end of the middle ages, proved the downright consequence of the system itself. God’s holy Word almost ignored by the people. An overflow of mystical sensations darkening the mind. A general bluntness and dullness, rendering both the conscience and the consciousness dim and obtuse; and the distance between the lower and the higher classes wide and sharp. The laity overruled by the clergy. All vital energy broken. And the spirit of liberty and independence quite crushed down.
At that critical period God sent as a saving angel, what we all still shall honor as the Reformation, and this powerful reaction against Roman symbolism, partly checked in the Lutheran, and more so in the Episcopalian church, has been wrought out fully only along the Calvinistic line, in the non-conformist churches. These churches therefore took a fully opposite stand. Instead of relying upon feeling and sensation, they appealed to Faith, and faith here meant both the understanding of the Revelation and its personal application to the soul. They denied absolutely the necessity of connecting the Infinite with the finite by symbols. God had revealed himself, had revealed the mysteries of salvation, had revealed his ordinances for every sphere of our existence, and according to what Jesus declares, eternal life was not to have agreeable sensations, but “to know Thee, the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.” Not symbols but the “wisdom of God” was the preaching of the Cross. “I speak as to wise men, judge ye what I say,” interpreted the apostolic method of teaching, expounding not to the clergy alone, but to all the saints, the mysteries of justification and redemption. — Here, therefore, lies the fundamental difference between our old Calvinistic churches with their bold confession, and Rome with its compromise. Of course there is the mystical working of hidden potencies in our mind, there is the perception of God in the conscience, there is the emotion in prayer, and there is the communion with the indwelling Holy Spirit. But these are the mystical gifts, and the aim of God's Revelation is not to abandon us to shady and dim perceptions, but to declare to us the truth, to lift us up to its understanding, and so to enable the children of the kingdom of heaven to kindle the pure and serene light of the Gospel, to become confessors of a sound and clear confession, and if necessary to shed their martyr blood not for mystical sensations, but for the inviolability of God's Revelation. Hence the circulation of their Bible among all social classes; the well defined confessions, which they unfolded as their banners; the substantial Scriptural content of their preaching; their purified and simplified liturgy; and finally their submitting of every creature to God’s holy ordinances. So standing before the dilemma of feeling or faith, they choose for faith. Standing before the dilemma between sensation and understanding, they declared themselves distinctly for understanding. And as to the fundamental dilemma between Revelation given to us by God, and Symbolism conventionally coined by man, they firmly antagonized the symbolical system, and stood up for the all pervading authority of God’s holy Revelation. This was the nerve of their strength, and to this staunch defense of Revelation over against Symbolism, they owe their imperishable glory in history. For it was by thus decidedly turning the wheel of life, that the human mind was roused from its slumbers, that the hidden energies of humanity came forward, that the direct union of the soul with God was restored, and that the liberty of conscience, the liberty of worship, and as its immediate consequence, the social and political liberties, were reconquered for every nation, following in their track.
The remarks thus far suggested to your attention, I trust, fully elucidate my assertion, that the symbolical tide of our days is undermining in the most dangerous way the very foundation of all Calvinistic churches. The principle of Symbolism and that of Calvinism are just the reverse of one another. An abyss is gaping between them. Symbolism in the holy precincts stuns, blunts and stultifies the organs of understanding, and checks their function agnostically. Our churches, on the contrary, did not cease to pray, with St. Paul, and “to desire that all the people of God might be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding.” Symbolism throws us back to that lower stage of religious development, which could but stir the feelings and intoxicate the senses of the masses. Our churches, on the contrary, raised the religious life to that much higher level, which leads every believer personally to what St. John confessed, “that the Son of God has come and has given us the understanding that we might know him.” And so also Symbolism subjects the laity to the mysterious performances of the clergy and hereby fosters aristocratic sympathies. Our churches, on the contrary, united both laity and clergy in one brotherhood, and thereby laid the foundation for the democratic pre-eminence of modern times.
Let therefore no one retort, that whatsoever catastrophe may be menacing elsewhere, neither Ritualism, nor Symbolism proper, has thus far made any noticeable intrusion into our Calvinistic services. May the fact be beyond question. But do you not know, that no good arithmetician will cast up the positive figures only, leaving out the negative ones. Now, in our case the positive is the intrusion of sensual worship, but here is also the negative item, viz., the darkening of the understanding and the slipping in of confessional indifference. Symbolism always begins by silencing the voice of the confession, by instilling some slight aversion toward the dogma, so digging out the bed in which the glittering ritualistic stream is to flow. And now, as I am a foreigner here, you know your own churches better than I do. But are you sure, that this negative action of Symbolism is nowhere operating among you? Is the danger that the love for the banners which your fathers unfolded, be drowned in mere practical work and beautiful services a chimerical one? And if not, if really among you also the fervent attachment to the revealed Truth is abating, and to a certain amount a share of confessional indifference here also moistens already, and thickens the spiritual atmosphere, then let the watchman of Sion mount the belfry, for then the gate stands ajar, and Symbolism lies in wait in the trenches before it. As little as the sailor can conjure the gale that hunts his vessel, but by keeping to his helm, so little can you check this symbolical current, if you do not emphasize your own church principle. For such a current is an all-permeating elementary power, to be checked only by the equivalent power of your attachment to the revealed Truth. Let us not deceive ourselves. Philosophic Agnosticism, Rome’s “fides implicita,” Ritschl’s anti-dogmatical school, the new school of Sabbatier in Paris, Rome’s concealing of the Bible, as well as the dethroning of it by higher criticism, and so also the increasing confessional indifference, are all moving on the same line, and the terminus of that line is no other than sensual worship and dim symbolical adoration.
So yes, we will stick with the biblical antithesis and reject all forms of Paganism and relish only in God's revealed word.
Well, look at the theology of the Trinity. It was not rigidly defined for centuries until it was required in response to growing heresies. The inclusion of the Deuterocanonicals (or indeed the entire content of the OT) was not required until the heresy of the Reformation.
It sounds like we heretics are to some strange extent determining whether or not you define your theology, what books are included in your official canon, and whether or not you grow in your faith. Now granted, we organized because of your "heresy", but since then I don't know of many of our beliefs that are reactions to the Vatican. :)
Bookmark
Kosta, I used the word "helps". No formula, no equation, just "helps". Is that really so complicated? All of us will be tested, and all of us will grow as a result of the testing. It is a good thing, even though we probably won't appreciate it as such at the time, although Paul DID. God tests when and where He deems appropriate. There is no scorecard. Scripture:
1 Thess 2:4 : On the contrary, we speak as men approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel. We are not trying to please men but God, who tests our hearts.
1 Chron 29:17 : I know, my God, that you test the heart and are pleased with integrity. All these things have I given willingly and with honest intent. And now I have seen with joy how willingly your people who are here have given to you.
Ps 105:19 : 19 Until the time that his word came: the word of the Lord tried him. KJV
A blind man may never see and a deaf man may never hear, but ALL of the elect start as nonbelievers. There's a world of difference.
What effort is it to "prove" the Bible to someone who already believes?
It SHOULD be no effort at all, but it hasn't turned out that way. :)
It's all Protestant/Baptist feel-good, man-made stuff, FK. It's all fluff. It's a same-minded club where everyone goes around quoting the Bible and everyone saying "Amen, Amen!" and patting each other on the back.
What are you talking about? As opposed to what?
"Symbolism throws us back to that lower stage of religious development, which could but stir the feelings and intoxicate the senses..."
That's a keeper.
I would hazard a guess and say no church is immune to it.
God bless
ping to #4634
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.