Replies

FK: "Well, I suppose we have a great deal of disagreement over exactly WHAT was finished."

I guess we do. Finished means perfect, complete. That includes the delivery of the true faith. The faith is delivered once from the lips of the Lord Himself. He said nothing of someone else picking up after Him. The same thing with Revelation. If Christ is the fullest revelation of God, why is there a "sequel?".

I don't know who you mean by "someone else" and I'm not sure what "sequel" means. Christ finished His role on earth toward the salvation of the elect. All of their sins were then paid for in full (within time). All of His actions were predestined by God, just as all the elect are predestined to believe and be saved. Jesus said He came to save, but under Apostolic thought no one was saved because He came. Therefore, Christ's work could not have been finished. We say His work on earth WAS finished as to salvation.

Our works are a reflection of our faith. We do works because, as you said yourself, God left us work to do. Being restored to the likeness of God is not accomplished with a magic wand.

Being restored to the image of God is what we call sanctification and happens after salvation is already sealed by grace through faith. Since God's grace is not earned, for us, and it comes only from God, I suppose it could be compared to a magic wand. IOW, God doesn't need our help to get what He wants done. If He really loved and wanted His elect to be saved, He would not roll the dice and leave it in the hands of men.

The NT, more precisely, the Gospels, are the narratives of God's revelation to man in His human nature. Without that, Christianity is meaningless because it would worship an unknown, distant deity which our human minds cannot conceive. In Christ, we can relate to God through His human nature, as use His humanity as our standard of what humans ought to be like.

I would agree with everything except to say that it applies to the WHOLE Bible, not just the Gospels. Do you really learn nothing about the nature of man outside the Gospels? I mean, it starts with Genesis! :)

The rest of the scriptures are either hints leading to the Gospels, or after-the-fact human interpretation and imitation of His teachings and life as witnessed by the Gospels.

Then I shutter to ask what your opinion is of the OT. But even with the NT, if you throw human interpretation into the writing of it, then you must not have much use for it since human interpretation is always subject to error. I have always said that your side has little regard for Paul, and the response is always that he was right but we misinterpret him. Now you are confirming what I said since you are saying that he was making it up (or "could have been") through his own interpretation. That's not something anyone can be sure of.

[continuing:] The book of Revelation is not even that. It's more like a de novo prophesy as if Christ did not fulfill the law and the prophets. It suggests that Christ did not reveal all that was to be revealed. And it flies in the face of the Great Commission that the Apostles are to teach what has been revealed, and not to invent or add to His revelation by some heavenly Internet "downloads."

In written form, Christ did reveal all that He intended to reveal in the form of the Bible, not just the Gospels. If you think that everything outside of the Gospels is just sort of extra, that may or may not be true, then I don't understand why your side has fought so hard in defending the Deuterocanonicals. If they're not the Gospels, then what's the big deal? I mean, they probably have as much error as Paul's personal interpretation in his writings, right?

Yes, but nothing can top the Gospels.

Nothing needs to top the Gospels. All scriptures are equally true.

FK: That can't be. NT quotes of OT statements are VERBATIM.

Excuse me?!? And what evidence do you have that they are? Let me guess: the OT, right? LOL! If you'd bother to look up the issue, you'll find that ancients did not quote verbatim but when they do quote "verbatim" they expressed what the author believed the person would have said.

So, when we see the NT quoting verbatim from the OT, that tells you NOT that the Bible is God-breathed and without error, but rather that the OT must be wrong because you know that the ancients did not quote verbatim? Your view does appear to be very focused, I'll give you that. :)

I am saying that alleged quotes (which the Greeks and Jews don't use) are not verbatim quotes. In many instances, they simply can't be. Such as what Jesus said on the Cross. Except for John, all other Apostles were far away, hiding, to hear anything being said there. And please don't tell me the HS "told them." The get-out-of-all-dead-end-corners-about-the-Bible card. LOL!

You're only laughing at the words of Jesus Himself IN the Gospels:

Matt 10:19-20 : 19 But when they arrest you, do not worry about what to say or how to say it. At that time you will be given what to say , 20 for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.

Mark 13:11 : Whenever you are arrested and brought to trial, do not worry beforehand about what to say . Just say whatever is given you at the time, for it is not you speaking, but the Holy Spirit.

John 12:49 : For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it.

If it's good enough for Jesus, I would think it was good enough for the authors of the Scriptures. :)

All of [Christ's] actions were predestined by God

That's a strange way to put it, but is it indicative of the Protestant/Baptist christology?

Jesus said He came to save, but under Apostolic thought no one was saved because He came

No, everyone was "saved" in a sense that everyone was offered a ticket to eternity who wanted it. But God was not about to carry anyone and the luggage to His train.

Therefore, Christ's work could not have been finished. We say His work on earth WAS finished as to salvation

Then what was +Paul preaching? Was Christ's own ministry not sufficient? And was His prophesy not the end of prophesies, but required a new revelation?

Being restored to the image of God is what we call sanctification and happens after salvation is already sealed by grace through faith

We never stopped being in God's image; we lost His likeness.

Since God's grace is not earned, for us, and it comes only from God, I suppose it could be compared to a magic wand

Forced conversion? Forced love?

I would agree with everything except to say that it applies to the WHOLE Bible, not just the Gospels

Oh, yeah, especially those parts of atrocities...

Then I shutter to ask what your opinion is of the OT

Ambivalence. It is quite alien. In some respects even pagan.

But even with the NT, if you throw human interpretation into the writing of it, then you must not have much use for it since human interpretation is always subject to error

NT establishes Christian core beliefs, Christ's divinity (John) and humanity (Synoptic Gospels), through the Gospels, and then through the rest of the books. Christianity is simply trying to imitate those core beliefs.

It's really that simple. It's life in faith. In that sense it is very close to Judaism. This is evident only in the East, where Orthodoxy is a way of life and the culture is inseparable from the faith. Even the worship is strangely reminiscent of Judaism.

So, if you wish to call a way of life in faith "works-based," then it is—the Jews call it mitzvot. Being a Christiana is not what one says but what one does.

have always said that your side has little regard for Paul, and the response is always that he was right but we misinterpret him.

No, the Church side has incfreidble regard for St. Paul. We read his epistles every Sunday before reading the Gospels. I am not sure why his epsitles are read, given that they were swritten as admonition and guidance intended for aberrant churches.

Yes the Church (East and West) says that the Protestants misinterpret St. Paul. But the Church doesn't really explain how, any more than it explains why our fasting involves abstaining from animal products three time a year for 40 days (clearly an innovation unknonw to early Christians).

Of course, Paul is theology; fasting is discipline. Not the same thing, but nonetheless indicative of the fact that the Cbhurch does little to explain certain things. I, more than most people I know, do have issues with that. Although I am willing to give the Church the benefit of the doubt, I reserve my judgment until shown otherwise.

St.Paul was crucial for the Church to survive. He had the thankless task of "selling" modified Judaism to pagan Greeks and Romans. Without him there would be no Church today.

That doesn't mean that his theology is necessarily what the Church crystallized as the core Christian beliefs. The idea of Christ's divinity was more of a process than something the Apostles took for granted. The NT shows a gradual development in that regard.

It is important to note that all christological heresies draw their material from the NT! They use Christian scriptures to prove what the Church calls heresy. Arians ("the Father is greater then I"), Adoptionists (Christ's baptism), etc. How is that possible? Precisely because of the human element of the New Testament (just as there is a human element in the Old Testament) writings.

Now you are confirming what I said since you are saying that he was making it up (or "could have been") through his own interpretation. That's not something anyone can be sure of.

How can I know if +Paul was "making it up?" He says Christ spoke through him, but why should I believe him? He also claims it is "his gospel." He taught what he believed was right. I have no way of knowing if that is what Christ told him to teach. I doubt that Christ had waited for Paul to tell "the rest of the story," or for "John" to reveal when He was on earth.

Nothing needs to top the Gospels. All scriptures are equally true

But not all equally Christian. So, when we see the NT quoting verbatim from the OT, that tells you NOT that the Bible is God-breathed and without error, but rather that the OT must be wrong because you know that the ancients did not quote verbatim? Your view does appear to be very focused, I'll give you that. :)

The ancients quoted others as saying what they expected them to say not necessarily what thy actually said. Just as they used to name their books by the first few words in the beginning. Those are historical facts, FK. Sorry to burst your bubble. :)

You're only laughing at the words of Jesus Himself IN the Gospels: Matt 10:19-20 : But when they arrest you, do not worry about what to say or how to say it...but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you

Well, apparently none, save for +John, had the "eyes" and "ears" enough to receive instructions in this manner, let alone faith and courage to face whatever for the Lord. And which of them was arrested? +Paul was and he pulled out a Roman citizenship. And +Peter was arrested and the angel broke down his jail and let him out. None of them quotes anything being said but the Spirit of their Father. They all denied Him ether by running away or outright denying him (+Peter).

John 12:49 : For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it

That must be "music" to Arians' ears.