Posted on 04/11/2013 11:16:18 PM PDT by DouglasKC
In the process of divine pedagogy God chose to mete His plan to mankind only to the extent we were ready to understand and accept it. Are you saying that as parents and teachers emulating that pedagogical process a sin?
Peace be with you
Well I'll give you credit...that's the fanciest way I've ever heard to ask the question: Is telling our kids myths and stories about a fat man who lives at the North Pole, has flying reindeer and employs elves to build toys a sin? :-)
I would say it is. But it's a sin that's no worse or no better than sins I commit. It's a sin that can be repented of very easily if one doesn't think that conforming to our current culture and society are more important than the commandments of God.
Are you asking me to rank myths? :-)
Not rank, but it seems the same objection would apply to both, yes?
“That because my one and only point has not been effectively engaged or refuted.”
I’m not convinced that you are able to know when your point has been either engaged or refuted. In fact, I don’t believe you fully comprehend the logic of your “one and only point.” After all, it’s a denial that all the adjectives, nouns, pronouns, prepositions in the world are not capable of conveying any type of meaning. Not only that, but you also deny that the scripture is “useful for reproof, for correction, for doctrine... that the man of God may be perfect.” Presumably, since you need someone else to read and understand it for you.
So, let’s ask you a second time:
Isa_44:8 ... Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.
If what you say is true, that scripture can be twisted any way one wants it, can you please twist Isaiah 44:8 to tell us that there is, in fact, many gods?
“Why don’t the Calvinists and Arminians go at each other like their namesakes did?”
Like our namesakes? Here is Augustine channeling Calvin, I suppose, deep in the past:
CHAP. 38 [XIX.]— WHAT IS THE VIEW OF THE PELAGIANS, AND WHAT OF THE SEMI-PELAGIANS, CONCERNING PREDESTINATION.
But these brethren of ours, about whom and on whose behalf we are now discoursing, say, perhaps, that the Pelagians are refuted by this apostolical testimony in which it is said that we are chosen in Christ and predestinated before the foundation of the world, in order that we should be holy and immaculate in His sight in love. For they think that “having received God’s commands we are of ourselves by the choice of our free will made holy and immaculate in His sight in love; and since God foresaw that this would be the case,” they say, “He therefore chose and predestinated us in Christ before the foundation of the world.” Although the apostle says that it was not because He foreknew that we should be such, but in order that we might be such by the same election of His grace, by which He showed us favour in His beloved Son. When, therefore, He predestinated us, He foreknew His own work by which He makes us holy and immaculate. Whence the Pelagian error is rightly refuted by this testimony. “But we say,” say they, “that God did not foreknow anything as ours except that faith by which we begin to believe, and that He chose and predestinated us before the foundation of the world, in order that we might be holy and immaculate by His grace and by His work.” But let them also hear in this testimony the words where he says, “We have obtained a lot, being predestinated according to His purpose who worketh all things.” [Eph. 1.11.] He, therefore, work-eth the beginning of our belief who worketh all things; because faith itself does not precede that calling of which it is said: “For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance;” [Rom. 11.29.] and of which it is said: “Not of works, but of Him that calleth” [Rom. 9.12.] (although He might have said, “of Him that believeth”); and the election which the Lord signified when He said: “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you.” [John 15.16.] For He chose us, not because we believed, but that we might believe, lest we should be said first to have chosen Him, and so His word be false (which be it far from us to think possible), “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you.” Neither are we called because we believed, but that we may believe; and by that calling which is without repentance it is effected and carried through that we should believe. But all the many things which we have said concerning this matter need not be repeated.
http://www.covenanter.org/Predestination/augustin_predestination.html
Can you tell me why you reject the tradition of Augustine in his reading of Paul?
More importantly, can you tell me which Pope you are in communion with? Is it with the Pope at Antioch, the Pope at Alexandria, or the Pope at Rome? According to “Pope” Gregory the First, all three of those Bishops possess the throne of Peter:
“Whereas there were many apostles, yet for the principality itself, one only see of the apostles prevailed, in authority, which is of one, but in three places. For he elevated the see in which he condescended to rest, and to finish his present life. He decorated the see, to which he sent his disciple the evangelist, and he established the see, in which, although he intended to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since there fore the see is of one and is one, over which three bishops preside by divine authority, whatsoever good I hear of you, I ascribe to myself. And if you hear any good of me, number it among your merits, be- cause we are all one in him who says, that all should be one, as thou, O Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they may be one in us. — In the Eulogy’ to the Bishop of Alexandria
Theodoret references the same belief when he places the “throne of Peter” under the Bishop of Antioch:
“Dioscorus, however, refuses to abide by these decisions; he is turning the See of the blessed Mark upside down; and these things he does though he perfectly well knows that the Antiochene (of Antioch) metropolis possesses the throne of the great Peter, who was teacher of the blessed Mark, and first and coryphæus (head of the choir) of the chorus of the apostles.” Theodoret - Letter LXXXVI - To Flavianus, Bishop of Constantinople.
So, can you tell me the continuous eternal doctrine of the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome actually got started? And I don’t mean the Primacy of Peter, since that term is used differently from then to now, and we know that started sometime in the 2nd or 3rd century. I want to know where the Primacy of Peter became connected with the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Can you get started on that? Since, after all, these people do all your thinking, it’s important that they actually have a 2,000 year old tradition, right?
All myths have some of their origins rooted in truth and all truth is rooted on God. Observing the wonder and joy in a small child's face at the Chritsmas miracle is good, and all that is good is of God.
I accept that angels are real and appear in life and in our minds in various forms. I will not say a fat man in a red suit in a child's vision is not an anger of God. ~Peace be with you
And so the Romanist, having no 2,000 year tradition to justify his trolling, runs in horror when faced with the quotes of his own Popes and Bishops.
Now I’ll have the leisure to whip on the UCG or UCG-like elements proselytizing on this Christian website, without interference from a Catholic who indirectly strengthens their position.
Very well. We are at an impasse then. It appears you are essentially insisting that I accept your definition of divinity without challenge, else you will brand me dishonest. That is a Hobson’s choice which I cannot accept. Nothing in the principles of God’s divine law requires me to quietly accept a misleading use of key terms to advance a conversation about truth.
Nevertheless, my hope is that God will vindicate our honesty and sincerity to you eventually. I am telling you what I really believe and am not lying. That is my testimony. If you reject it, what can I do? I believe you are sincere, but wrong. If you cannot reciprocate at least that much, then you will understand why I must stand down.
But the light is still on over here, should you reconsider.
Peace,
SR
‘Legalism’ generally goes hand and hand with many false religions...’do this don't do that’...is key to keeping people in bondage to rules and regulations, rituals and various other “passages of acceptance” they've determined are necessary.
It is written....
John 8:32..... Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
John 8:36.... So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.
God has provided many things of the world for our enjoyment while we remain here....but ‘legalistic false religions ‘rob’ people of the very things God intends they enjoy.
Let's not forget the celebration when Jesus was born...Angels sang...the sky was bright...a star led men to offer their gifts to Christ....etc.etc.etc. Heaven celebrated....and so do we by the gifts given, stories shared, excitement in the air....and that includes, Santa, reindeer, sheep, manger scenes on stage, chorus's singing, greeting cards..and all that points to WHO we are celebrating.
Thank you very much for that post.
Are you calling me a Romanist, you silly newbie?
That wasn't the point at all. The point was about the fairness and bias of a website that was purported to be representing my beliefs in a fair and honest manner and your reliance on it as a source of valid information about theology.
Nevertheless, my hope is that God will vindicate our honesty and sincerity to you eventually. I am telling you what I really believe and am not lying.
I believe you. But I've told you that I'm not lying when it comes to CARM and their characterizations of UCG and you obviously don't believe me. So obviously you share and/or espouse that same attitude. And that's fine but if you can't even admit this much then I don't see where there will be profit in having a discussion.
If you're interested in the biblical nature of the Godhead please see: Who Is God?
Really? Wow...so they teach kids the mythology of Santa Claus. They tell them all about Santa flying through the air in sleigh and that he comes down the chimney and puts presents under the tree... but at the same time they tell them that it's us, the parents, who put the presents under the tree? That's certainly not been my experience or the experience of millions of Americans over the last 100 years or so.
anymore than they do Humpty Dumpty, Snow White or any of the other stories shared with them throughout life. .....Would you also exclude these?
Oh come on...really? You don't think that parents draw a clear difference between Santa Claus and these fairy tales? I know they do...these fairy tales don't infringe in reality as does the Santa Claus myth. These fairy tales aren't wrapped up in and around religion either.
‘Legalism’ generally goes hand and hand with many false religions...’do this don't do that’...is key to keeping people in bondage to rules and regulations, rituals and various other “passages of acceptance” they've determined are necessary.
It's legalistic to not lie to your children? It's legalistic to not break the 9th commandment of our Lord and savior? Is it legalism to reject myths and fables that have been wound into Christianity? You should re-read the article...lawlessness IS the hallmark of the false religion of the bible.
Let's not forget the celebration when Jesus was born...Angels sang...the sky was bright...a star led men to offer their gifts to Christ....etc.etc.etc. Heaven celebrated....and so do we by the gifts given, stories shared, excitement in the air....and that includes, Santa, reindeer, sheep, manger scenes on stage, chorus's singing, greeting cards..and all that points to WHO we are celebrating.
Men rejected the holy days of the Lord Jesus Christ and substituted their own holidays of which Christmas is one. Leviticus 23 lists the holy days of the Lord Jesus Christ. These are the same holy days Christ and his disciples honored and kept.
Oh great don-o...I thought for sure I was going to get invited for a barbeque over at GPH's house and now you got him all mad at me again. :-(
Christ and His disciples also honored/kept circumcision.
Again...
Why isn’t this part of UCG or is it?
Who me? I ask one simple l’il ol’ question and behold the avalanche of words and multiplied blather directed at me.
It’s a good question. I like my question. I think I will be asking it again.
In Christianity physical circumcision isn't forbidden but it's not needed for salvation. Scriptural evidence is abundant and very clear on this.
Amen!
I agree. But I'm asking about UCG doctrine.
Why is circumcision different than observing holy days or dietary laws? Why isn't isn't it treated the same way?
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.