Posted on 01/27/2008 7:56:14 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
January 25, 2008
ESV Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
In recent days I have spent time in Lima and Sullana Peru and Mexico City and I have discovered that people by nature are the same. Man has a heart that is inclined to selfishness and idolatry. Sin abounds in the remotest parts of the land because the heart is desperately wicked. Thousands bow before statues of Mary and pray to her hoping for answers. I have seen these people stare hopelessly at Mary icons, Jesus icons, and a host of dead saints who will do nothing for them. I have talked with people who pray to the pope and say that they love him. I talked with one lady who said that she knew that Jesus was the Savior, but she loved the pope. Thousands bow before Santa Muerte (holy death angel) in hopes that she will do whatever they ask her. I have seen people bring money, burning cigarettes, beer, whiskey, chocolate, plants, and flowers to Santa Muerte in hopes of her answers. I have seen these people bowing on their knees on the concrete in the middle of public places to worship their idol. Millions of people come into the Basilica in Mexico City and pay their money, confess their sins, and stare hopelessly at relics in hope that their sins will be pardoned. In America countless thousands are chained to baseball games, football games, material possessions, and whatever else their heart of idols can produce to worship.
My heart has broken in these last weeks because the God of heaven is not honored as he ought to be honored. People worship the things that are created rather than worshiping the Creator. God has been gracious to all mankind and yet mankind has hardened their hearts against a loving God. God brings the rain on the just and unjust. God brings the beautiful sunrises and sunsets upon the just and unjust. God gives good gifts unto all and above all things he has given his Son that those who would believe in him would be saved. However, man has taken the good things of God and perverted them unto idols and turned their attention away from God. I get a feel for Jesus as he overlooked Jerusalem or Paul as he beseeched for God to save Israel. When you accept the reality of the truth of the glory of God is breaks your heart that people would turn away from the great and awesome God of heaven to serve lesser things. Moses was outraged by the golden calf, the prophets passionately preached against idolatry, Jesus was angered that the temple was changed in an idolatrous business, and Paul preached to the idolaters of Mars Hill by telling them of the unknown God.
I arrived back at home wondering how I should respond to all the idolatry that I have beheld in these last three weeks. I wondered how our church here in the states should respond to all of the idolatry in the world. What are the options? First, I suppose we could sit around and hope that people chose to get their life together and stop being idolaters. However, I do not know how that could ever happen apart from them hearing the truth. Second, I suppose we could spend a lifetime studying cultural issues and customs in hope that we could somehow learn to relate to the people of other countries. However, the bible is quite clear that all men are the same. Men are dead in sin, shaped in iniquity, and by nature are the enemies of God. Thirdly, we could pay other people or other agencies to go and do a work for us while we remain comfortably in the states. However, there is no way to insure that there will be doctrinal accuracy or integrity. If we only pay other people to take the gospel we will miss out on all of the benefits of being obedient to the mission of God. Lastly, we could seek where God would have us to do a lasting work and then invest our lives there for the glory of God. The gospel has the power to raise the dead in any culture and we must be willing to take the gospel wherever God would have us take it. It is for sure that our church cannot go to every country and reach every people group, so we must determine where God would have us work and seek to be obedient wherever that is.
It seems that some doors are opening in the Spanish speaking countries below us and perhaps God is beginning to reveal where we are to work. There are some options for work to be partnered with in Peru and there could be a couple of options in Mexico. The need is greater than I can express upon this paper for a biblical gospel to be proclaimed in Peru and Mexico. Oh, that God would glorify his great name in Peru and Mexico by using a small little church in a town that does not exist to proclaim his great gospel amongst a people who desperately need the truth.
I give thanks to the LORD for allowing me the privilege of going to these countries and broadening my horizons. The things that I have seen will be forever engraved upon my heart. I will long remember the pastors that I spent time with in Peru and I will never forget Adolfo who translated for me in Mexico. I will relish the time that I spent with Paul Washer and the others. When I think of church I will forever remember being on top of that mountain in Sullana at that church which had no electricity and no roof. I am convinced that heaven was looking down on that little church on top of that mountain and very few people on earth even know that it exist. Oh, God I pray that the things of this world will continue to grow dim and that God’s people will be caught up in his glorious presence.
Because of the truth: Pastor: J. Randall Easter II Timothy 2:19 "Our God is in heaven and does whatever He pleases."(Ps. 115:3) "He predestined us according to the good pleasure of His will."(Eph. 1:5) Those who have been saved have been saved for His glory and they are being made holy for this is the will of God. Are you being made holy? Spurgeon says, "If your religion does not make you holy it will damn you to hell."
“We should treat the OT as Jesus did.”
***********************
Yes, TRUE.
You have a remarkably short memory, FK. Not so long ago I posted the official position of the Orthodox Church on the Scriptures, and this was actually my third such post.
I remember that link, and while it did say that the Orthodox Church believes that the scriptures are SUBJECT to human error, in no way is it anywhere implied that MOST of the scriptures are patently FALSE as far as fact goes. In fact, in the various Orthodox Catechisms I just consulted, they all say that whole of scriptures are "VERY IMPORTANT" to the Orthodox faith. You CANNOT tell me that you agree with that as far as you personally are concerned, based on what you have been saying.
Just to flesh it out, since you appear to challenge my assertion that the Orthodox Church disavows your view of scripture, do you say that the Church AGREES with your view of scriptures and the things you have been saying about them?
Many of them implying that much in the Old Testament was a misinterpretation of the nature of God, or misrepresented God's will — because they couldn't see God manifest in the flesh, or hear Him speak with a mouth of clay. Some (it looks like) implying, for example, that “an eye for an eye” were somehow Moses’ misrepresentations of God.
This is a naturalistic view, and much influenced by a modernistic sense of how man wants God to act toward man, or in his affairs.
But, it seems to me, what is ignored is that God can change His instructions to man justly from one age to another. It is not a violation of His nature.
From the very beginning of the Bible -— God's instructions to Adam while in a state of innocence in the Garden were not the instructions God continued to give to Adam after the fall, once Adam was ejected from Paradise.
So God manifest in flesh, Jesus Christ, justly modified His instructions to the nation of Israel for a new Day, a new Age, a new Dealing with the nation (Matthew through John), and it does not say in the least that the instructions given from Sinai to Moses were not correct, or were somehow “misinterpretations” by the Old Testament writers.
Further, God the Holy Spirit gave subsequent Revelation — advanced Revelation, if you will, directly through post- Resurrection Apostles and prophets, that supersede even instruction given in Matthew chapters 5 through 7, Matthew 10, Luke chapters 9 and 10, and other areas of the Gospel records.
When my children were seven years old, the instructions and restrictions applicable to their daily lives and activities would not match very well the instructions given to my sixteen and seventeen year old children. I have children from age 30 all the way down to age seven. The eldest yet living in my house is sixteen. My seven year old knows quite well that she can't venture out as my sixteen year old son does. The instructions justly change from year-to-year.
I find no indication anywhere in Jesus’ words in the Gospel records that He believed that anything in the Mosaic Law is to be taken as anything except proper instruction for that period of God's dealings with Israel.
Jesus Christ never brought doubt upon the verity of any words in the Old Testament. He called the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms SCRIPTURE (Luke 24:25-46). If they are Scripture, then they are “given by inspiration of God” (2 Timothy 3:16, 17).
And I submit that it is dangerous territory to claim that God wrote the Bible.
I am simply going by the "type" that Reformed Christians call God. If there is evil, God must have thought it necessary for evil to exist. He created conditions for evil to exist and, by His irresistible will, made it happen.
It can be debated if one can have a will without a need, in which case even the Biblical "will" of God is but an anthropomorphism.
If all your needs are satisfied, what drives you? We can infer into this because the Bible says we were created in His image and endowed with reason so that we may understand. But then the whole thing is thrown out the window when God says "your thoughts are not my thoughts." So, what is there to "understand?"
Of course, we can't imply that God's creation was a senseless act, but a determined one. Thus, if God willed evil into the world, which He hates (!), then it must be inferred that it was absolutely necessary that evil exist, and if there were a better way God would have chosen that.
But the Bible reminds us in Isaiah that it is (the Hebrew) God who creates evil (actually calamity) to happen to us. So, right from the Old Testament, Isiah tells us that God creates evil, and you are denying it. What gives, FK?
Then comes Christ, our God, and he overturns the money changers' ables in the Temple. If this is not telling the Jews they had it all wrong I don't know what is. But you will tell me that He came to fulfill the law and the prophets. Sure he did, but what is law and the prophets?
Mat 7:12 tells us what that is, and it's not what you seem to imply. The verse says
Not Jeremiah, or Joshua, smiting everything in their path, or God creating "evil," BUT use your own standard of what you would not want done to you! Leaving it up to us to decide?
How can you believe in an omnipotent and controlling God if you also believe Matthew 7:12?!? Is this not your objection that that the "Apostolic" God is a weak God acting to accommodate men? Well, that's precisely what Mat 7:12 tells us. How come you never mention that verse?
In Rom 13:8, Paul says
Is this the same law, as witnessed by Moses in Leviticus? If your son or daughter are disrespectful, Moses' law says you can kill them. Because you love them?!?
And get this, in Galatians 5:14, Paul says:
So, when you speak of the Law you mean Leviticus; when Orthodox Christians speak if the law, they speak of love of God, and this was unknown to the Jews. St. Paul says that the "righteousness of God apart from the law, has been made known." (Rom 3:21)
Kosta: Where are you getting this from?
FK: From your post. What else could you possibly mean but that God loves satan if you are criticizing me for saying that satan is God's enemy?
I never said He loves Satan. I simply questioned your assertion that God made His own enemy. Since there is nothing good in satan, there is nothing God can love in him. But He didn't create Satan with a purpose to hate him, because that would imply that God, who is love, was motivated by hate.
YES and YES! The Bible is filled with examples of God using the lost to accomplish His plan. The only way around these many many passages is to disregard them
Yes, if they fail the Christ-like test of the Gospels, is you can't find the love your neighbor as yourself in them. Christ preached peace and love, something that irritates and is quite opposite of the Zeus-like God of the OT the Protestants believe in.
That would be acceptable were it not for the fact that there are others who claim their holy books do the same.
One knows they are from God, when they are
There are countless examples of people making such claims, and an equally countless number that were shown to be unreliable and outright false.
Your argument is placing the entire faith in a testimony of a single person's subjective experience. Talk about making a leap of faith!
Joseph knew to listen to his dream and John knew to write down his vision
That's what the Bible says. And I am not denying it. It may very well be that righteous Joseph and blessed John really did "know" or believed they know (this is why Gnosticism persisted throughout the ages and apparently subsists among the Reformed!).
The problem is proving it, because, by itself, the Bible has no reliability whatsoever. Like all other "holy" books, it requires an a priori faith. IOW, you must already believe that everything in it is true to "prove" that it is true! Which is no proof at all.
That's being a "religious hypochondriac," FK! :)
I didn't say it's a lie. I am only saying it is no proof. We know what the Bible says, but the Bible is an orchestrated collection of stories with an agenda.
Historical events show that Christianity was being suffocated in Israel, that the Jews en masse rejected Christ, and that the term "lost sheep of Israel" had to be redefined, and the entire ministry redirected to a more "fertile" ground.
History also shows that some of the apocalyptic beliefs and interpretations of the early Christians had to be redefined as well, as it became apparent that everyone who witnessed Christ say they will not taste death before His second coming was not what they had in mind.
Early Christians were urging followers to sell everything now, give their possessions to the needy, and wait for Christ to reappear. It was supposed to be imminent and within their lfietime. That's what the Apostles believed and taught.
The early Church also pushed the OT to the back burner. At the turn of the century, the Church becomes distinctly anti-Jewish, even going after those who insisted on keeping Jewish holidays and practices. The OT in its' entirety wasn't integrated theologically into the Church until Irenaeus, at the dawn of the third century. It was an after thought as well.
The whole movement was in a state of flux and the Church hierarchy, the Apostles and their successors, were struggling to keep the faith alive and in order to do that they had to make some pretty extreme course adjustments. I am not saying they were wrong, but it wasn't smooth sailing, for sure.
We will both have the chance to tell God what we thought of His Holy word
I do every day, FK, and a real God would know even if I didn't.
It may very well be! Now you are beginning to think like me. :)
Those of us who believe will say it was God guiding the Church. But the fact that such little interventions are necessary shows that nothing in our way of doing God's will is perfect, that our faith and worship and interpretations are individually fallible. History show us that even great theologians slip into error, and the Bible tells us that even some of the Apostles doubted Christ to the very end, and that all to a greater or lesser extent misinterpreted Him until the Pentecost.
As I pointed out earlier, the Pentecost was a turning point, when they ceased being followers and doubters and became irreversible believers and martyrs for faith. Something happened there and it was life-chaning and there is no denying it.
Sure, sometimes. God's revelation is in His Holy word which can be communicated through the printed page or directly through the Spirit
Totally disagree with you! The Holy Spirit spoke through the prophets says the Creed. You are separating HS form God. In fact, the Protestants seem to have a problem integrating God with the other two Hypostases. It's not surprising though.
God's revelation is realization that something must be not from this world. It's not God's "word." The words that describe this realization are ours and therefore imperfect and limited.
You are talking about little visions and voices that someone is putting in your head. That's insanity, FK. Hallucinations, psychotic experiences. Unfortunately, that's what so many people believe is revelation and then they God and kill their children because "God told me to."
Unfortunately, that's how most people are convinced that the Bible is true. They have to read it. People believe anything they read. "I saw in the New York Times, it must be true." I remember years back one of our assistants was from Russia (a mail-order bride of sorts). Her favorite "defense" was (in heavy Russian accent) "It must be true, it's in the kompyutr."
People like stories. They believe stories. We can communicate morals and messages through stories and make it "entertaining" and "fun to read." But this is our way of communicating. God's revelations are wordless realizations of where we are and perhaps even why.
Yes, that is my assessment as well. Modern man has given up Christian presuppositions and inserted man himself in their places. Without God as the foundational starting point as the basis of reality, man grasps at straws and can only make sense of things by what makes sense to him AS the starting point. This has man transforming God into what man wants, just as you said.
But, it seems to me, what is ignored is that God can change His instructions to man justly from one age to another. It is not a violation of His nature.
I totally agree. A change in direction is not a change in essence. God can walk and chew gum at the same time.
So God manifest in flesh, Jesus Christ, justly modified His instructions to the nation of Israel for a new Day, a new Age, a new Dealing with the nation (Matthew through John), and it does not say in the least that the instructions given from Sinai to Moses were not correct, or were somehow “misinterpretations” by the Old Testament writers.
Amen. The New Covenant wouldn't be new if it wasn't different from the Old Covenant. That doesn't mean the Old Covenant was wrong or bad.
Why do you say "dangerous"? I have the evidence of the Bible itself saying that all scripture is God-breathed. I also have the evidence of God's Church, all true believers, virtually unanimously accepting the proposition that the Bible is GOD'S revelation from Him TO us. The Bible isn't man's holy word, it is GOD'S Holy word. Christians everywhere agree to that. What do you have on your side that would make my (our) position dangerous?
It can be debated if one can have a will without a need, in which case even the Biblical "will" of God is but an anthropomorphism. If all your needs are satisfied, what drives you?
To your first statement, how so? You are the one who is attaching human characteristics to God. The issue is "need" versus "want". God wants time to play out in a certain way so He is taking the steps necessary to ensure that. It is not because some outside force is compelling Him, or that God is lacking in some way such that He is making up for it. It is simply that God wants "this" so God is going to get "this".
We can infer into this because the Bible says we were created in His image and endowed with reason so that we may understand. But then the whole thing is thrown out the window when God says "your thoughts are not my thoughts." So, what is there to "understand?"
I'm not sure I understand the question. We will understand everything that God wants us to understand, but that will not include an exhaustive knowledge of the universe since we are finite. For one thing God wants us to understand (eventually) every jot and tittle in the Bible.
Of course, we can't imply that God's creation was a senseless act, but a determined one. Thus, if God willed evil into the world, which He hates (!), then it must be inferred that it was absolutely necessary that evil exist, and if there were a better way God would have chosen that.
Well, there may be some semantics here. I would agree that what happens is necessary for God to get what He wants, or else it wouldn't happen, and that God chose the best way to get it. I just don't want to give any impression that I think God is compelled, or cornered into anything. His will is absolutely sovereign and free, above all other wills in the universe.
But the Bible reminds us in Isaiah that it is (the Hebrew) God who creates evil (actually calamity) to happen to us. So, right from the Old Testament, Isiah tells us that God creates evil, and you are denying it. What gives, FK?
Perhaps you refer to this from the KJV:
Isaiah 45:7 : I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
I think you may have decided on one and only one view of the clause "create evil". It is meant in terms of God's sovereignty and that everything that happens is by God's design. When there is peace it is because of God. When there is war it is likewise through God's wishes. It does NOT mean that God is the author of evil. Barnes' explanation isn't bad:
Isaiah 45:7 [And create evil] The parallelism here shows that this is not to be understood in the sense of all evil, but of that which is the opposite of peace and prosperity. That is, God directs judgments, disappointments, trials, and calamities; he has power to suffer the mad passions of people to rage, and to afflict nations with war; he presides over adverse as well as prosperous events. The passage does not prove that God is the author of moral evil, or sin, and such a sentiment is abhorrent to the general strain of the Bible, and to all just views of the character of a holy God.
The totality of scriptures is absolutely clear that God is not the author of evil, but it also says that God is absolutely sovereign and in complete control of everything. To some these are mutually exclusive ideas, but it is in fact what the Bible teaches, so we must decide whether to accept what God has taught or to reject it in favor of our own views. BTW, the Isaiah verse is supported by this:
Amos 3:6 : 6 Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it? KJV
The principle is sovereignty, not that God does evil.
But you will tell me that He came to fulfill the law and the prophets. Sure he did, but what is law and the prophets?
Well, actually HE will tell you that:
Matt 5:17 : 17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
I have seen different explanations on how the Law and the Prophets (and the Psalms) are divided up, but the overwhelming consensus that I have seen is that when Jesus uses these terms He is referring to the entirety of the OT.
Mat 7:12 tells us what that is, and it's not what you seem to imply. The verse says "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." Wow! Do unto others as you would have others do unto you!
For your purposes that is an irrational oversimplification of the intent of the verse. Do you really reduce the entirety of the OT to "do unto others..."?
How can you believe in an omnipotent and controlling God if you also believe Matthew 7:12?!?
We obviously interpret that verse very differently. Summaries are nice and easy to use and indeed valuable, but God would have only given us summaries if that was the whole of what He wanted to give us. He obviously wanted us to have more. Summaries are a place to start, not to finish. Perhaps that is where part of the problem is.
Is this not your objection that that the "Apostolic" God is a weak God acting to accommodate men? Well, that's precisely what Mat 7:12 tells us. How come you never mention that verse?
Why do you think Matt. 7:12 has God accommodating man? I don't see that anywhere.
So, when you speak of the Law you mean Leviticus; when Orthodox Christians speak if the law, they speak of love of God, and this was unknown to the Jews.
When I speak of the Law and the Prophets (and the Psalms) I mean what Jesus meant, the entirety of the OT. It appears that the Orthodox ONLY work with summaries, thus rendering the totality of God's revelation irrelevant. ....... To suggest that righteous Jews did not know the love of God is unfathomable. I wouldn't even know where to start with that one.
St. Paul says that the "righteousness of God apart from the law, has been made known." (Rom 3:21)
Yes, ....... and? In context, Paul is obviously saying that this righteousness comes by faith, NOT by doing works of the Law, such as doing unto others, etc. I'm not sure what your point is.
FOREST KEEPER: For your purposes that is an irrational oversimplification of the intent of the verse. Do you really reduce the entirety of the OT to "do unto others..."?
Not only is it an oversimplification, but owing to the weak translation, the meaning of the verse has been diluted. In the KJV, the verse reads...
"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." -- Matthew 7:12
Nothing about saying this is the whole of the law and the prophets.
But those who would deconstruct Christianity down into a Dale Carnegie paperback would have us think the NT just means being nice to each other.
It's a lot more; just as the OT was a lot more.
And further, the very next three sentences Christ uttered were quite specific and cautionary...
Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." -- Matthew 7:13-15"Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
So what is the straight and narrow gate that leads to life?
Is it upright living and good works? Is that what earns us our salvation?
No, upright living and good works are the fruits of our regeneration by the Holy Spirit. We are not saved by our own works of righteousness, but by Christ's righteousness alone, given as a "free gift" from God to His family.
And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." -- Romans 5:15-19"But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
Christ came and appeared to all men and nothing has been the same since. But Christ did not come merely to tell us how to behave ourselves; He came to give us the ability to behave ourselves by the gift of the indwelling Holy Spirit.
Christ didn't come to help us display our own righteousness; He came to make us righteous by infusing us with His righteousness.
Christ didn't come to show us how to redress our sins; He came to acquit us of our sins by paying for every one of those sins Himself, one-time on the cross, then graciously rising from the dead to prove it all true.
That is the law and the prophets.
All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all... Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors." -- Isaiah 53:3-6;10-12"But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
That would be acceptable were it not for the fact that there are others who claim their holy books do the same.
So if others claim against the truth, then the truth is lessened, or becomes less knowable in your eyes?
The problem is proving it [that Joseph had a dream and John had a vision, both from God], because, by itself, the Bible has no reliability whatsoever.
In that case then by definition for you God's word has no inherent authority. Any authority you believe that small parts of the Bible have must have come from your men, not God. Some prefer to have authority in men and others recognize that all authority is in God.
That verse doesn't say how to worship.
We are also given more clues in verses like James 4:8 (Come near to God and He will come near to you
Oh I see...and how do you come to God? Is it not God who comes to us first?
I mean that there are no material differences that would lead a reader to a manifestly different faith if he followed any of the respective texts
Sure there are. The KJV is decidely protestantized. You are also forgetting the Septuagint, the Old Testament of the Apostles which the West flatly rejects.
The Portestants/Baptists also reject the books the early Church considered part of the scripture and does to this day.
So your statement is oatently false.
Jesus spoke about many things that can be considered "core beliefs". They include His deity, His resurrection, His atonement for our sins, and His second coming
Where does Jesus call Himself God? Don't give me answers that point or suggest, but rather where does He say "I am God?"
Where does He say His was a virgin borth? Does He claim that?
The Christian "core beliefs" is a Triune God (in every respect coeternal and substantial), a Hypostatic Union of Christ's Incarnation, and Mary being the vrigin brithgiver of our Lord. As far as I can tell, Christ never speaks of either of those.
Oh, I'll take it up with Him alright. :) I'll ask Him that if you are right, why did He lie to us about His power in His word. The possibility that you don't consider is that He orchestrated every detail of everything that has happened for His own reasons, not fully explainable by us
Then I have nothing to say to Him. If I am wrong in my beliefs, it would be His "orchestration," that irresistable divine "tractor beam" leadings us around.
If God is a mere reactor to man's doings, then He is also a liar, according to the scriptures.
He came to save the world which became corrupt. But since you beloieve that God oirchestrated man's corruption I giuess His coming to earth was just for show. As far as lying is cocnerned, the OT tells us that God sends deceving spirits. Does that make God a deceiver? Maybe the way OT authors saw God, yes. But Christ is an altogether different story.
No, but they are the key that unlocks the mystery of the God's revelation as it should be interpreted. That's the meaning of being a Christian, FK—it is the belief in Christ as our Lord and God; that He is the true visible representation of God, as God wanted us to perceive Him all along.
God does not change, FK, as someone here recently suggested, and you agreed. Human perception of God changed.
I accept that Paul's teachings are true because they are scripture, and they do not conflict with Christ.
Well, sure, St. Paul's teachings are true so long they do not conflict with Christ's teaching. They are not scirpture just because; they are scripture because they agree with Christ's teachings (Gospels) even though some people's interpretation of St. Paul don't.
That's adultery??? I think you have that wrong, FK.
Is there any Biblical evidence that any of the Apostles taught people to sell everything "now"? Or, does the Bible have Jesus saying that no one on earth can know when He will return, and that there will be false prophets deceiving people just as you suggest?
The early Church also pushed the OT to the back burner. At the turn of the century, the Church becomes distinctly anti-Jewish, even going after those who insisted on keeping Jewish holidays and practices. The OT in its' entirety wasn't integrated theologically into the Church until Irenaeus, at the dawn of the third century. It was an after thought as well.
By "early Church" I assume you mean Apostolic Church, as opposed to all Christians. It is interesting to see that grievous error WAS in the Apostolic Church immediately after the Apostolic era. We've been saying that for a long time. :)
Yes, assuming that there remains no atonement for that sin
Do you believe there is atonement after death? One must repent of a sin in order for that sin to be forgiven. That must take place before death.
I am afraid some Christians place repentance on the back burner and simply assume they will be saved no matter what (back to that 'pecca fortiter' which I will reply on some time in the future when I have more time). Only a devil could devise such a deceitful belief to give false hope.
While salvation may not be at issue, punishment and discipline certainly are
That's what I thought some Christians believe and you prove my point above. What punishment can be worse than eternal separation from God, an eternal spiritual darkness? It seems to me that some only see the atonement part, and not the repentance part that the Bible speaks of. There is no forgiveness without repentance, FK. The sooner you realize that's the message of the entire Bible (even the OT), the sooner you will understand Christ's accomplishment on the Cross, which made it possible for us to be saved.
The regenerated mind should not want to habitually sin because the regenerated mind wants to please God.
It's irrelevant. The regenerated man still sins. But the regenerated man will also repent of his sins, not in order to buy his way into heaven but because he regrets having turned away from God, because he places God first and all the wordily things second, because He loves God and doesn't wish to sin against Him. The key is love for God, not fear of what level of punishment He will exact. The key is shame for our ungratefulness to God, because every time we sin we are showing our ingratitude.
Totally disagree with you! The Holy Spirit spoke through the prophets says the Creed. You are separating HS form God. In fact, the Protestants seem to have a problem integrating God with the other two Hypostases. It's not surprising though.
Holy Spirit DID speak through the prophets, but the Bible says He also speaks through US, all believers. He leads us in all things and gives us the proper words to say at the proper time according to God's will. There is no separation between Holy Spirit and God. Holy Spirit IS God.
God's revelation is realization that something must be not from this world. It's not God's "word." The words that describe this realization are ours and therefore imperfect and limited.
Ah, that explains much. For you then, in CONCRETE terms there is no revelation from God at all. There appear to be only nudges and notions. Man is who really constructs the faith as we understand it today. Therefore, I would assume, since the Bible is a man-made construct, every man is free to decide which portions work for him and which do not. In addition, every man is free to follow any group of men that sound like they make sense to him. To me, that reduces everything to faith a la carte, led by an extremely weak and disinterested God.
God's revelations are wordless realizations of where we are and perhaps even why.
And I suppose it's by blind faith that you know that the total of God's revelations are not the same hallucinations you speak of?
Yes the Incarnation is the ultimate revelation of God as He wanted us to perceive Him (with our limited senses). That is the "core" belief of Christianity, FK. God is ineffable, invisible Spirit who is nothing like us and whom we can neither know nor relate to. Christ, on the other hand, is both visible and comprehensible, a Person we can relate to, imitate and follow (in His humanity). That's why we can only come to God through Him, through His humanity.
Indwelling Spirit is, I believe, something St. Paul introduced. If He means that the love of God is in our hearts and minds, and that we imitate God in our spirit, I can agree with that concept but I think your side has something else in mind, more like an alien presence that was implanted in the "elect."
You yourself have pointed out that there are several passages in the Gospels in which there could have been no other direct witnesses, such as His trials in the desert and when He prayed to take the cup away. Yet, (I hope :) you accept those as true
I believe in the message of the Gospels, as I do in the message of the whole Bible when the message is Christ-like. As far as His trials in the desert is concerned, the Gospels, if I remember correctly, do not agree as to just when did He go to the desert (i.e. right after the Baptism, which is in an of itself strange), or after several days. So, there is some room for doubt.
Clearly, the Gospels could not be eyewitnesses to everything there is in them. They are narratives which in most places corroborate themselves. In other places, the accounts differ or are even not mentioned (for instance John doesn't even talk about the trial of Jesus by the Sanhedrin! In other places the same conversation takes on a life of its own, such as the alleged exchange between Christ and Pontius Pilate, what Jesus said on the Cross, or how many women discovered the empty tomb, how many angels were there, etc., etc., etc.)
I think you are concentrating on the the stories more than on the message behind them. The essence of Christ's teachings is fundamentally different from the angry messages of other Jewish "messiahs," including St. John the Forerunner/Baptist. He was as unlike the Jewish warrior-king as it gets.
The second problem is that at least two our of four Gospel writers are not eyewitnesses (Mark and Luke), and at most that all four were not the Apostoles to whom the Gospels are attributed. However, the message is a compilation of what is probably part legend and part eyewitness account of Jesus' ministry which the mainline Christians accepted and lived by in the 1st century A.D.
The scriptures are authenticated by GOD, , not by how many humans were around to vouch for them.
Every other religion says that for their holy books. That's about as convincing as saying "it must be true, it's in the New York Times," FK. You must already believe that in oder for that to be true, so no matter how you look at it, a believing human is always vouching for them being true.
Amen to your whole post Dr. E.! Well done. :) The powerful God is able to fully atone for those who cannot atone for themselves. The weak God simply punts the ball back to the people to earn their salvations comparatively on their own. The powerful God assumes a weak and flawed people. The weak God assumes a very powerful people who have it within themselves to ultimately attain their own salvations. To God alone be the glory for our weakness!
FK: Here: John 4:23-24...
Kosta: That verse doesn't say how to worship.
Sure it does, it says to worship in spirit and in truth. THAT'S HOW! :) If you are looking for what time the service should start it's not there, but so what?
FK: I mean that there are no material differences that would lead a reader to a manifestly different faith if he followed any of the respective texts.
Sure there are. The KJV is decidedly protestantized. You are also forgetting the Septuagint, the Old Testament of the Apostles which the West flatly rejects.
I meant the SPECIFIC respective texts that I listed and said I was familiar with, i.e. the NIV, KJV, and ESV. As far as the Septuagint is concerned I am unaware of how its text would destroy the faith of Bible believing Christians.
The Protestants/Baptists also reject the books the early Church considered part of the scripture and does to this day.
Presumably this is the same early Church that you just admitted to me recently was in grievous error right off the bat.
Where does Jesus call Himself God? Don't give me answers that point or suggest, but rather where does He say "I am God?"
I'm pretty sure I've already posted those scriptures to you on this very thread. I don't have better ones that I was holding in reserve. :) The Gospels are crystal clear in quoting Jesus proclaiming Himself to be God. Eyes to see and ears to hear. If you disallow Jesus from even saying THAT, then anything goes.
Where does He say His was a virgin birth? Does He claim that?
Yes, although I can't think of a Biblical quote from Him directly, He claims that through His revelation to us in scripture. However, if one decided to nullify the scriptures, then I suppose one would only have to decide which group of fallible men to follow to "know" such things. The faith would be in the men.
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.