God lost His Truth, His Church? (A civil discussion regarding such issues)

Submitted for discussion, the following statement (and all that can follow from it....

1.) Did God lose his Truth? Or hide it? Or not allow it to be seen or known? (During the period of time in question.)

2.) Why would something that God has promised would continue, need to be "rediscovered"?

4.) If one holds to the fact that Rome was not the true church, where was the Body before Rome, and during Rome, but before Luther or Calvin?

5.) How does your belief regarding Rome effect your belief about Scripture? Did God give His Word to Rome? If so, why isn't she orthodox according to Scripture?

In an effort to more fully understand my Calvinist friends, I went searching for information. I found that statement on the website for the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC). I copied it from there, but I believe it probably fits a number of the Calvinistic belief systems. (Different Calvinistic churches.)

In starting this thread, I request that we check our egos at the door. I'd like to discuss this, but I am not interested in people who brag about what they know but never use any Scripture to validate their claims.

Also, this isn't an anti Catholic thread, but I will warn my catholic friends that they will not care for the beliefs many of us have regarding Rome. That doesn't lessen our respect for them as individuals. I invite them to participate here as well, if so desired.

I have friends in other religions who have said (it's a cop out I think, but bear with me) that they could never be __________ (such and such a denomination) because the people who disagree with each other are so rude.

2 Timothy 2:24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,

25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;

26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

By the Grace of the Almighty i have returned...needed only to put in a token appearance, and all is well.

Thank you OP. Having lurked some of these threads, i feel quite intimidated to be in the company of some of you, quite formidable. At this time, i will seek brevity in comment, because i am still getting a feel for HTML. Not brave enough to try anything yet. I took the name when i realised that deplictions of John Calvin looked a great deal to me as if he were the 16th Century version of Darth Vader. i mean, would any of YOU want to fill THAT guy's inbox with spam?? Ask Michael Servetus why that is a bad idea (you want fries with that?). Truth is a hugh issue to me. The invisible Church in all of it's expressions is now going through a crisis of truth and authority, even the Catholics. To reverse this trend i believe that is first neccessary to inform the world that Love is not necessarily the "warm fuzzies" that is portrayed to us. Some times love is a smack across the a$$, and one of those can be more beneficial than 1000 warm fuzzies, especially to a child. In the case of the church, i think we may need a 2x4 to th back of the head to get their attention.

MarMema; Cleburne; RnMomof7; Jael

I see no means by which to establish a claim of a "pure" church, "untainted" by popery.

In 988 Orthodoxy was brought to Russia by Prince Vladimir, where it flourished.

The years of 1350-1550 were the culmination, considered the "golden age of Orthodoxy" in Russia.

In the eastern church we were physically isolated from the rest of the world and protected as well. In Russia some of the most profound spiritual times were during the middle ages.
Andrei Rublev comes to mind.

6 posted on 01/01/2003 2:26 PM MST by MarMema

2Timothy 2:22 Flee the evil desires of youth, and pursue righteousness, faith,
love and peace, along with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart.
2Timothy 2:23 Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments,
because you know they produce quarrels.
2Timothy 2:24 And the Lord’s servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be
kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful.
2Timothy 2:25 Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope
that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth,
2Timothy 2:26 and that they will come to their senses and escape from the
trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.

CHAPTER 3

2Timothy 3:1 But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days.
2Timothy 3:2 People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money,
boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy,
2Timothy 3:3 without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control,
brutal, not lovers of the good,
2Timothy 3:4 treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God —
2Timothy 3:5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have
nothing to do with them.

Based on the verses cited, I posit the following:

History of the church since the book of Acts

dailyChristian Thought Have you ever been confused by the book of Revelation?

chuck <truth@YeshuaHaMashiach>

I understand from OrthodoxPresbyterian’s post on this thread that you are a traducian. Many of us FR Calvinists share your theology. We think it’s pretty important for understanding the Fall and the doctrine of original sin.

You might certain be interested reading certain posts on a couple of our other threads (although those threads have long been inactive).

By the way, please pardon the goofy title of the threads!

The discussion of traducianism actually starts on the "Jesus not the Son of God (Thread 2)0." I invite you to read my posts 117, 122, 126, 127, 155, 159, 180, and 181 on Jesus not the Son of God (Thread 2)

To complete the series, you will need to go to Thread 3 and read 40, 57, 80,98, 193, 206, 213, and 219. The link is Jesus not the Son of God (Thread 3)

Some of the posts are long and downright tedious. There is also a lot of repetition for continuity’s sake (i.e., for lurkers), but I honestly believe you will find it interesting material in view of your traducian theology!

What on Earth is Augustinian Traducianism? Thanks for the help.... 46 posted on 01/01/2003 6:04 PM PST by rwfromkansas

There are within Christian tradition (Roman, Protestant, Orthodox) three views of the origin of the individual soul.

FIRST: Preexistence. This view as taught by Origen, maintains that souls of mankind had a conscious state in some sort of previous state. This condemns them to be born into bodies in this life. (almost sounds like reincarnation)

SECOND: Traducianism. This view teaches that the soul is generated by the two parents in the same manner as the physical charistics of the individual.

THIRD: Creationism. This is the majourity view of all of the churches. Creationism is the view that the soul is created by the direct and immediate agency of God, and is infused into the person at conception.

Of those three views, I personally favour Traducianism, as it avoids a messy problem of Creationism, namely if the soul is created by immediate agency of God, and is indued with original sin, QED, God is the source of sin! By a traducian understanding, a soul corrupted by original sin is the responsibility of the parents who were also corrupted by original sin. It also explains better the Incarnation, if Jesus had no human father, he could not have had a human soul corrupted by sin.

"The_Doc" has stated in the past that, in addition (or perhaps I should say, in correlation with) the Sin-imputation "problem" with the Soul-Creationist view identified by CDL in the post above, he feels that Traducian or "Natural generation" theology does a much better job of expositing various passages of Scripture on Human Sinfulness (Romans 1, for example) than does the Federal-Covenantal "imputation" view favored by Soul-Creationists. He sent me a very good essay on the subject at one time. I think that I lost it over the summer when my computer crashed. I should probably ask for another copy.

I wholeheartedly agree with "the_doc"s view, except that I don't see any "opposition" between Traducianism and Federal-Covenantal theology. In my opinion, Traducianism makes for a much stronger and more organically-complete Federal-Covenantal theology than the (vaguely artificial, it seems to me) "structural-inputational" formula proffered by the Soul-Creationists.

legal

natural

In other words, if Soul-Creationists believe in the universal inheritance of Original Sin by the entire Race of Man, then they sorta have to be Federal-Covenantal theologians. Given their belief in Soul-Creationism, the Legal Imputation of Original Sin to the Race of Man as "federal participants" in the Adamic Covenant is the only explanation available to them. So Soul-Creationists have to be Federal-Covenantal theologians.

But (IMVHO), this does not imply any opposition between Traducianism and Federal-Covenantalism; I rather think that it makes the argument for Man's federal-covenantal participation in Adam's Sin that much stronger than it could ever be under Soul-Creationism -- the Race of Man is fallen in Adam not only by imputed *legal* inheritance as federal-participants in the Adamic Covenant, but also by organic *natural* inheritance as Adam's natural heirs.

"Man is a species, and the idea of a species implies the propagation of the entire individual out of it...Individuals are not propagated in parts."

"But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be tht the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you...The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. For I reckon that the sufferings of theis present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us." Romans 8:9-11,16-18 KJV.

i think that covers both catechisms don't you? Amazing how perceptive a bunch of dead guys committed to what the world calls "dead orthodoxy" can be isn't it?

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.