Posted on 01/14/2011 5:57:52 PM PST by topcat54
Evangelical book catalogs promote books such as Planet Earth: The Final Chapter, The Great Escape, and the Left Behind series. Bumper stickers warn us that the vehicle’s occupants may disappear at any moment. It is clear that there is a preoccupation with the idea of a secret rapture. Perhaps this has become more pronounced recently due to the expectation of a new millennium and the fears regarding potential Y2K problems. Perhaps psychologically people are especially receptive to the idea of an imminent, secret rapture at the present time. Additionally, many Christians are not aware that any other position relative to the second coming of Jesus Christ exists. Even in Reformed circles there are numerous people reading these books. Many of these people are unaware that this viewpoint conflicts with Scripture and Reformed Theology.
(Excerpt) Read more at reformed.org ...
Of more than one syllable, perhaps.
Go look it up. It’s in Scripture. Hint: I believe it’s in one of Paul’s epistles.
Izzat so? Do you believe in Jesus or do you believe in Paul as your Saviour?
And it’s this exact obtuse statement that shows your error. We do not worship books. ‘Word of God’ is used to describe The Bible... which I thought you could understand since Rome apparently authored it. Christ is our focus; not tradition, not popes, not iconography, or prayer beads, or other tripe like indulgences, Maryolatry, and all the other false doctrine that has been pointed out on various threads. Yet WE are not considered Christian! Were it not so sad, that would be a hilarious statement.
Didn't you say that you worship the Word of God?
Well, technically you didn't; you merely posted this tripe to my posting to another FReeper who claimed that Christians only had one book - the Word of God in http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2657209/posts?page=2990#2979. John 1 makes it plain. The Word of God is Jesus; the word of God is the Bible. We worship the Word; we venerate the word.
Why not open the book that you thump and actually read it?
Shhh. It is enough to be antiCatholic to be considered Christian in modern enlightened circles.
Perhaps we could try to establish a bridge from Methodism to Catholicism such as the ones from Episcopalianism or Lutheranism? I'd ante up to pay the toll for you, padre. :)
“Of more than one syllable, perhaps.”
Oooh. Witty.
Obviously you’re out of anything to add.
Hoss
Interesting essay; however, I must object to the first principles of it - that what we term knowledge is actually faith in what we observe.
The principle seem to be that there is little or no difference between what we believe and what we know, and so therefore, belief and knowledge can be lumped together.
The biggest objection to that is that the presumption of a real world that is consistent in itself and objective does not lend itself to the idea that what one sees in one's head is of the same order. The lunatics in the asylum see and believe all kinds of things with the same insistence that fervent Christians do. Does that make them correct? Devout Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Jains, and Calvinists (!) claim the same level of knowledge. What makes them wrong and you right - in terms of knowledge?
This is faith...belief, the very sin MarkB accuses Alamo-Girl, betty boop and others of.
Either the world is real and objective or else it isn't.
Oooh. Witty. Obviously you’re out of anything to add.
Since you will not listen to me, why not try Proverbs 1:7 on for size.
Once more, I do not wish to be pinged to posts that attempt to start fights between Freepers. Just not interested and I'll bet almost everyone else is pretty tired of your spamming as well. How many times are you going to keep posting the same things over and over again? If you haven't gotten your point across by the first ten times, then saying it again another ten won't do much good either. I have tried to explain that we're not worried about the Calvinists on this forum having us arrested and burned at the stake. However, there are some Catholics here that do sound ready and eager to do just that.
“Didn’t you say that you worship the Word of God?
Well, technically you didn’t; you merely posted this tripe to my posting to another FReeper who claimed that Christians only had one book - the Word of God in http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2657209/posts?page=2990#2979. John 1 makes it plain. The Word of God is Jesus; the word of God is the Bible. We worship the Word; we venerate the word.
Why not open the book that you thump and actually read it?”
Hmm. You “venerate’ the word (scripture) — so you pray to it? Veneration is worship — funny you accuse me of what you claim you DO. Wow. Don’t Roman Catholics “venerate” Mary? I’ve seen lots and LOTS of posts that are prayers to her!
You know, it’s more than sad when someone has to basically twist meanings to try to make a point that really isn’t making a point — and then out themselves as doing what I’m being accused of!
RIOT!!!!
Hoss
FYI...I’m not calling anybody names. I was posting a reminder to you both about what God’s word has to say about those who sow or incite discord. He don’t like it, ya know?
MARK BSNR: Since the accuracy of your posts is very well known and understand, I shall. Aruanan, is that what you posted?
Aruanan posted the following post, for which I thanked him...
Let's ask a lutheran -- xzins, did Luther believe in double-predestination? Well, how does this sound? It is from Luther's Bondage of the Will, Section X.
"Hence it irresistibly follows, that all which we do, and all which happens, although it seem to happen mutably and contingently, does in reality happen necessarily and unalterably, insofar as respects the will of God. For the will of God is efficacious, and such as cannot be thwarted; since the power of God is itself a part of his nature: it is also wise, so that it cannot be misled. And since his will is not thwarted, the work which he wills cannot be prevented ; but must be produced in the very place, time, and measure which he himself both foresees and wills." "If God does not foreknow all events absolutely, there must be defect either in his will, or in his knowledge ; what happens must either be against his will, or beside his knowledge. Either he meant otherwise than the event, or had no meaning at all about the event, or foresaw another event, or did not foresee any event at all. But the truth is, what he willed in past eternity, he wills now; the thing now executed is what he has intended to execute from everlasting; for his will is eternal: just as the thing which has now happened is what he saw in past eternity; because his knowledge is eternal." Wednesday, February 02, 2011 2:57:00 PM · 2,929 of 3,126 aruanan to Cronos
"God foreknows nothing contingently, but foresees, and purposes, and accomplishes every thing, by an unchangeable, eternal, and infallible will. But, by this thunderbolt, Freewill is struck to the earth and completely ground to powder. Those who would assert Freewill, therefore, must either deny, or disguise, or, by some other means, repel this thunderbolt from them."
This was followed by aruanan wondering who questioned the established fact of Luther's belief in double predestination here...
DR.E: That excerpt from Luther certainly does support double predestination. ARUANAN: Who disagreed and claimed it did not? 2,946 posted on Wednesday, February 02, 2011 4:43:10 PM by aruanan To: Dr. Eckleburg
And I responded to aruanan with this. (Note, you were included even here)...
DR.E: That excerpt from Luther certainly does support double predestination. ARUANAN: Who disagreed and claimed it did not? Cronos and Markbsnr have denied that Luther taught double predestination. Therefore I was surprised by your agreement with my posts stating Luther did indeed believe in a double predestination, as evidenced by your quote. I'm delighted. May this be the first of many theological agreements between us. (wink wink nudge nudge) 2,947 posted on Wednesday, February 02, 2011 4:56:59 PM by Dr. Eckleburg To: aruanan; Cronos; MarkBsnr; xzins
So as anyone (you, too, God willing) can see, you were notified TWICE of aruanan's agreement that Luther believed in double predestination, as outlined in POST 2,945
Three little posts
All in a row
Hopefully teach
What Mark doesn't know.
Could you please jump off that hobby horse? Better yet, take a hammer to it, it’s turned into an old nag.
My research is not aimed at that end. If God wanted me to know him I would. :)
One can study throughout life, all the popular and historical findings and evidences yet still not come to an understanding of who God is
So, then, why don't you tell me what God is?
It's like knwoing there's someone you've never really met, but know them thru writings as in a novel...it's another story altogether when you actually meet with them
I know what the Bible tells me God is and what the Church says, but I don't find that compelling. If I say I know something, I can explain it. If I can't then I don't know it. I only know of it.
So I returned to just reading the scriptures and a bible dictionary when I got hung up on definitions. At first for a few days which then lead to many weeks
I do a lot of that. But, guess what? The Christians say one thing and the Jews another.
I cannot begin to explain the difference except to say I understood that which I know I do not have the intellict to understand apart from God somehow bringing that clarity thru the scriptures as I read
I had the same experiences when I was a believer. The problem was that I never questioned them. And, when I finally did, I realized they both subkjectively and objectively false. Which is why I am where I am.
Tony Snow knew this I think. And I posted this to you because I do believe you want to know who God is, and moreso God wants you to know who He is.
Tony Snow was a religious man. So much is clear. As to whether he knew it for sure, I don't know. I suppose he may know now.
So I guess what I'm saying is if your truly desire to know who God is, and not just about Him...ask Him and then read the scriptures for as long as it takes...just read
Look, neither Noah, nor Abraham, nor Moses read a single word, nor did Paul ever witness Jesus in person, and the Bible tells you that they knew God, perhaps better than those who read...I am confident that if there is a God, and he wants me to know him, I will. :)
Please do not think I'm in any way trying to convert you to any particular religion or church
I guess then it doesn't matter which book I read or don;t read. :)
but you might need to get off the circle of knowledge and just read the letters He wrote.. with Him....until you do know
I have, for years. I even learned koine Greek to do so. What makes you think I never read "his letters?"
Let me help you with the Scripture I was referring you to:
2 Timothy 3:16-17:
“16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
Not written by the Roman Catholic Church. Get it? Not AUTHORED by anyone other than God Almighty.
Hoss
Veneration is not worship. Which corner of the swamp did you learn that in?
You know, it’s more than sad when someone has to basically twist meanings to try to make a point that really isn’t making a point — and then out themselves as doing what I’m being accused of!
Since veneration is not worship, what are you doing?
(Whistle, whistle)
Over here.
A new victim for you.....
I do not bring the OT writers into the fray. I mean that the NT writings for the most part do not even testify to the divinity of Jesus except for a few, somewhat. Most of them say or intimate that Jesus is a man, favoured of God, a super David. That's part of the great insistence on the lineage, which doesn't really work out - we've explored that one on two recent threads of which I believe that you were a participant.
MARK BSNR: Since the accuracy of your posts is very well known and understand, I shall. Aruanan, is that what you posted?
Aruanan posted the following post, for which I thanked him...
I don't recall asking you. I asked aruanan. I'm sure that (s)he can speak reasonably well and does not need the equivalent of Robert Gibbs to be a mouthpiece.
I asked if aruanan posted this and was hoping to start an exchange which would lead to the posting of reasons for these statements, since I could not arrive at those conclusions from the posted words.
Three little posts
All in a row
Hopefully teach
What Mark doesn't know.
All three are not in a row. However, I will appreciate aruanan telling us where these passages tell us that men are predestined to hell, if you can possibly stop skipping around in a little circle and singing nursery rhymes.
You are too kind.
2 Timothy 3:16-17: “16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
What does God-breathed mean? You haven't answer thus far; perhaps you will answer now. Does it mean dictated, like the Torah was, but not the Tanakh? If the Tanakh is not dictated, then not all Scripture was dictated was it? Did God dictate Luke? Did He dictate the Revelation of John? Let's have it.
Not written by the Roman Catholic Church. Get it? Not AUTHORED by anyone other than God Almighty.
The Tanakh was not authored by God. Neither (expressly) was Luke. Or Revelation. Now what do you have?
Pay attention. These may be big numbers for you...
2,945
2,946
2,947.
Now, I've shown you where your skepticism was in error regarding aruanan's agreement that Luther did indeed hold to a belief in double predestintation.
Is it so impossible for a Roman Catholic to say they made a mistake? Misread a post? Didn't do their homework?
Me, too! Funny how much folks squawk when they are convicted by God’s word.
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.