Wow. I’ve never seen anyone take the dictionary out of context before.
Remind me to never be your passenger when you driver through a speed trap.
“Joel: what does the cop mean: ‘pull over’?”
“You’re the wise guy, look it up.”
“It says here, ‘pull-over’ is a type of sweater…”
“Um… try the verb, andros”
“Ah, it says it means to stop driving.”
“There you go.”
“But that’s impossible! I can’t stop driving. Sooner or later I’ll drive again.”
“Well…”
“Maybe I’ll just slow down and the cop will be happy.”
“Um…” (I start waving my surrender out the window. “I think the cop wants you to stop.”
“I can’t do the impossible. I’m sure pull-over can’t possibly mean what you think it means. Maybe I can make the cop understand.” (yells out window.) “I’LL PULL OVER WHEN I’M DEAD AND NOT A MOMENT SOONER OFFICER!”
“Er, well, it has been fun, andros. This is where I get off.” (as I leap from moving car.)
(Yeah, Pariah – the bit about Webster being Protestant was a bit of a joke. I was just throwing that out there.)
Joel, I find your imputation that every Protestant believes what you think he believes to be quite as obnoxious as Esprix finds the fundamentalist assertion that his homosexuality is somehow his choice. It’s a dogmatic position not founded on any dogma, and as such comes close to trollery. While as an Episcopalian I am not strictly a Protestant, I was brought up a Methodist, and have some grasp of the doctrine taught there. Pariah is, I believe, a staunch Protestant and a scholar of protestant theological thought.
In any case, I am about to make an assertion and I welcome your argument or refutation of it. It is not intended to be a dogmatic pronouncement, but neither is it denominational, and I’d therefore open it to all comers for critiquing.
All Christians believe that one is “saved” by the grace of God – not anything that a human being can do, but by His power – and that one accepts this grace for himself in faith – placing his reliance on God’s faithfulness to keep His own promises – and then acts out his role as one of God’s children through keeping His commandments, including doing good in the world, as God gives him grace to do so.
You and I, or we and Pariah, or the three of us and Jersey Diamond, may differ as to what rules to keep when and how, the importance of Baptism and the Eucharist, the Apostolic Succession, and dozens of other points of interest, but they are not key and core to our being a Christian. IMHO, the above is.
The (abridged) Oxford Dictionary gives the following definitions for repent:
[list=1]
[li]feel deep sorrow about one’s actions, etc. (intr. vb)[/li][li]wish one had not done; regret; resolve not to continue (tr. vb.)[/li][li]feel regret or penitence about (refl. vb.)[/li][li]creeping, esp. growing along the ground or just under the surface (adj.)[/li][/list=1]
Nowhere in there do I see an explicit cessation as a required element, though the intent to cease is implied in each verb definition. But, as noted, we are weak.
Perhaps the key point to this whole thing is the idea of a relationship. I have been doing this song-and-dance for some time, and I thought that you, Joel, at least, agreed with me:
The idea of salvation is not a free pass out of Hell because you greased the palm of the right archangel in some slimy legalistic system; it’s the idea that God knows and loves you and is in no way interested in seeing you doom yourself to becoming a tortured remnant of yourself – as indulgence in any sin indefinitely will eventually lead you to. When a 20-year-old stud becomes an 80-year-old man and still indulges in chasing women, we do not find him virile but ridiculous. When drinking alcohol becomes not a take-it-or-leave-it social amenity but a necessity, one has entered into alcoholism, and eventual self-destruction. Similarly with pornography, eating to excess, and virtually everything else on the Jesuit or Fundamentalist list of sins. None of these is necessarily evil in and of itself, but when it becomes the center of one’s life, it becomes a besetting sin one conquers with God’s grace. Or not.
There are a bunch of skeptics around here who have posted remarks about, “If that’s what heaven is like, I wouldn’t want to go anyways.” I couldn’t agree more. If one is not in a committed loving relationship with one’s God, then the traditional metaphors for Heaven will sound like ultimate boredom. If one is, the situation becomes quite different.
And that, at rock bottom, is my position. I won’t bother going through the minor points we seem to be at odds on – if you choose not to see the two points Jesus quoted from the Torah as the “summary of the Law” – despite one Gospel’s comments on what He called it and the point Hillel made about it, we need not agree on that term. It is still the core of what makes me tick. And if it isn’t any more important to you than some random verse from a Pauline epistle, I do feel sorry for you. And that is neither condescension nor sarcasm, but heartfelt compassion.
Christ on a moped, Joel, give it up. You know very well that I did not take anything out of context, and that I am not the one quibbling semantics. Let’s review.
Polycarp said:
IOW, we’re weak, we sin, we cannot be perfect, we can only strive within our imperfection to avoid sin. When we do fail–and likely we will, because we’re imperfect–we can still receive God’s forgiveness if we are truly repentant.
You replied:
Au contraire. It makes fine sense. Assuming one is not manufacturing definitions, that is.
"To repent" does not mean “to stop sinning.” It means:
You making it circular by throwing in a disclaimer which complicates the simple definition above.
(Bold is my emphasis.)
Here’s what I make of Poly’s definition.
A fundamentalist is
The definition of fundamentalist is,
according to the guy who invented the term
as defined by the gentleman responsible for coining the specifically religious definition “Fundamentalist”,
** "one who believes in**
“One who places his faith in, and allegiance to, and otherwise adheres to and follows the paradigm of
the fundamentals
The foundational tenets and ideology which constitutes
of the Christian religion.
The ‘way’ described by Christ which leads to redemption, salvation, glorification and perfection.
Is this so incomprehensible?
You keep drawing such a line of separation—‘Fundamentalists all think that their truth is different from everyone else’s’ when in reality the term itself connotes simple adherence to the basics and focusing on said basics.
You seem to be in pursuit of debate of what those ‘basics’ are, and imply that the ‘basics’ of the Fundamentalist (and Protestant alike) are somehow seriously in error.
Now here comes the odd part.
This completely threw me.
From ‘You give yourself away’ to your ‘playbook’ line—all I could think of was ‘This guy thinks we’re conspiring against him?!?’
jmullaney, I submit that you’re jumping at shadows when we’re sitting in a well lit room.
The “dichotomy” was one that I drew, (see above) for everyone to see, comparing human unbelief versus the assurance that by belief we are saved.
Polycarp simply asserted that yes, this dichotomy is famous, i.e., “well known.”
Maybe he should have said ‘It is famous to apologeticists.’
In any case, the dichotomy was not clear to you—which is evident by your reaction to it.
You might have asked for clarification.
But what did you do?
You transferred your, again, broad-brushed (meaning, ‘lacking regard for the individual due to prejudice against the collective’) disdain to incorporate Polycarp and myself, taking something the two of us understood—and which you did not, as demonstrated by your attempt to dismiss it by stating we ‘twisted scriptures’ to arrive at a conclusion you still failed to understand—and stated that since we agreed and understood each other “the exact same way”, we’re forming a conspiracy ‘out of the same, non-biblical playbook.’
All because Polycarp and I agreed on something?
Or because you would rather remain suspicious than ask for clarification?
Now, here’s the rub:
I, as a Christian, do not acknowledge Protestantism from Catholicism from Orthodoxy ad nauseum ad infinitum.
In relating to my fellow man, lofty as that sounds,
I don’t care to make the distinction.
No. I frankly do not care.
You, jmullaney, because I do not adhere to Catholic teachings, but call myself Christian, might label me ‘Protestant.’ Or ‘Fundie.’ Or whatever else you choose.
I follow Christ.
I do not abide by denomination.
I am a Protestant–by someone else’s definition.
I am a Fundamentalist–by someone else’s definition.
I am successful by someone else’s definition, and I am a failure by someone else’s definition.
I absolutely do not care.
See, I believe denominations were borne of human pride and a lack of faith in Christ and the veracity of his teaching.
I was not baptized into ‘The Protestant Religion.’ I am not a ‘Protestian.’
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, as much as I am able to be.
I love him.
Yeah, it’s easy to say.
But is it easy to admit that I have at times been such a hypocrite I deserved no less than having my tongue cut out of my mouth for the vitriol I spewed?
Is it easy to say that sometimes I hurt so intensely that suicide seems viable, all because of the shame I feel at my own iniquity?
No, not God’s condemnation–my own shame, because I do not love where I should, and I do not act as I am led.
I digress.
This is a huge subject, and I will not elaborate too far in this thread. However, this leads directly into your next statement:
You’re incorrect.
Matthew 22:35-40
This is the summary of the law.
This is my ‘denomination.’ This is what I adhere to. Everything else, I trust that the Lord will open a door, or close it if need be.
In regards to traditions, nothing matters to me but Christ. All of those things he bade us do? Sure, I do them. Not because I was born into the dogmatism. Not because ‘I’m a s’posed to cuz God’ll kill me if I don’t.’ I take part in them because I remember my God better when I do. Because they inspire me to place myself in the environment which Christ lived, to remember those instances as though I were there.
There are some traditions I do not adhere to. Not because ‘They’re hellborne!’ Not because I’m rebellious. Because I am simply not led to partake in them. And I know, from the words of my God, that this is ok—and it is not for me to condemn another’s traditions, or I myself will be led to divisiveness.
I would like to humbly submit that the reason Polycarp and I, and many others who seem to be playing out of an ‘extra-biblical playbook’ are inspired by the leading of the Holy Spirit, whom we trust will, as Christ said, ‘Lead us into all truth.’
I trust Him. I have faith in him. If I did not, I would be a shallow grave and a hypocrite. I speak not because I feel obligated to. It is because I am INSPIRED to. If I spoke out of pure dogmatism, I could kill entire generations’ faith because I’d be an automaton spouting and perpetuating second-, third-, fourth- and ninetieth-hand convictions which I don’t even understand.
It is my duty, which I perform with zeal (when I’m not being a lazy loser), to know my God better. To question, to seek, and to explore all the areas which I am to believe—and I have been ostracized from even fellow Christians because I will not simply accept a ‘head knowledge assurance’ of something I feel is simply wrong within a church.
I fight to trust my God.
And I lose sometimes. Because I’m human.
But my Redeemer lives.
And Redeem is an active verb.
And His sacrifice was powerful enough to take every screw up I have made, and every screw up I will ever make, and wipe it out.
I do not include ‘every sin I will ever make’ lightly. To sin separates me from my God. To sin causes me discomfort. I don’t like to.
But I want to. Yeah, you bet. Every second of every day I would ENJOY doing the thing which I’ll regret later–or someone else will.
But I strive to deny myself–insane, yes.
But I do it because I love God, and I love son.
And I’m trying to love myself.
Because God loved me enough to allow his little boy to experience death for me, to experience SEPARATION from Him for me, that I might not have to be separated from Him when it came to be my time to leave this place.
People say ‘God killed His son.’
No.
He simply allowed him to experience total separation from the Greatest love in existence.
Then brought him back.
The same way he brings me back from my sin–back to love instead of hate. Self hate. Hatred of humanity. Of injustice. He instills love within me again.
And when I have come to face love again, I remember the small part of me which knows how good it is to cry, to be held tightly and told ‘Yes–I love you. And I always have, even when you hated me.’
It’s so easy to hate.
But…‘I love you.’
I wholeheartedly agree with you.
Seriously.
And I don’t need to tell you that I disagree with you as vehemently here as your generalization of all ‘Protestants’ being alike.
You can’t do anything about it?
You just did. Look at that last paragraph you wrote.
This is what it all boils down to.
And you spoke your mind.
Keep doing it, and you’re doing something about it.
Arg! Websters agrees with me, so you guys go out and find two dictionaries that don’t? Is that what passes for intelligent debate these days?
Jesus neither has an American heritage, nor did he study at Oxford. If you believe he did, and that the Catholic Church has conspired to cover this up for the past two millenia, you people are off your rockers.
As the Church clarified 550 years ago:
This was iterated at the Council of Trent which was called to clarify doctrines contested by the Protestants.
If I wanted to put it in the most diplomatic way possible, I would say the following:
Which again shows that Protestants believe that “God’s grace” to overcome original sin is not given equally to all, and as such overcoming original sin is impossible. Since they blame God for not giving them sufficient “grace” it is not their fault and so they maintain that they are saved never-the-less. Right?
That would be the expected Protestant view of things.
God loves those who love him. If you love him, you will keep the commandments taught by his son – the gospel. You can’t replace Jesus on the cross with a happy face and INRI with “Have a nice day.”
Agreed. And one loves God by keeping his commandments.
Did he call it a summary? He said these were the commandments upon which all others hang. A “constitution”, I suppose, in our modern parlance. You can’t just ignore the rest.
And that is a good thing! But it risks ignoring the bigger picture. If because of original sin you can’t see the bigger picture… well, heck, there are so many others like you.
Anyway, I’ve really got to stop popping into these threads, and I’m sorry if I’ve upset anyone. Have a good St. Patty’s day everybody.
Even when you know you misspoke, and could put things to rights with a simple admission of it, you still can’t backpedal one damned inch, can you, Joel?
:shrug: Whatever. Not my problem. Pariah, much luck. Don’t get too stressed if you get frustrated with Joel–he has that effect on people. Anyone who can frustrate both Poly and Gaudere to the point of throwing up their hands is nearly a primal force of nature.
Have you ever said “hate” without literally meaning hate? Compared to what your suppose to feel for God and do for God, everything else would looks like hate. If I have to choose between taking care of my family (sick or whatever) or following the king of the Universe because he told/asked me to, I’m going to have to say, " Sorry kids/hubby/mom/ect hope all goes well, take care and pray pray pray, but I have to go". I bet if they didn’t know God, they would think I hate them. The point was talking about a parable where several people were invited to a feast but made excuses about their families or thier land or whatever.
The point is that when you’re called, GO. Without regard for anybody or anything else. blueletterbible.org wrote:
(25-26) Disciples must put Jesus first
a. What is a disciple? The word disciple simply means “learner”; a disciple is someone who is a student, a learner of Jesus
b. So, what does it take to become a learner of Jesus? Jesus has just shown us that coming to God is like accepting an invitation (14:16-24); is that all there is to it?
c. First, Jesus was boldly saying that nothing can come between you and God - even good things such as family and the instinct of self-preservation
i. Think of how audacious Jesus is! He asks for this kind of ultimate commitment, and we give it to Him - why? Because of love. When we know the love of Jesus; when we are in a love-relationship with Him, only then can we be committed to Him like this
ii. Napoleon: “I know men; and I tell you that Jesus Christ is no mere man. Between him and every other person in the world there is no possible term of comparison. Alexander [the Great], Caesar, Charlemagne, and I have founded empires. But on what did we rest the creations of our genius? Upon force. Jesus Christ founded his empire upon love; and this hour millions of men would die for him.”
d. Hate is a strong word, but that is exactly how it can seem to family members and friends when we put Jesus before them
Mark 10:19 You know the commandments: ‘Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.’" Mat 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
**Mat 19:18 ** He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou
shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
**Mat 19:19 ** Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Mat 22:36 "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?
**Mat 22:37 ** Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ Mat 22:38 This is the first and greatest commandment.
**Mat 22:39 ** And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’
**Mat 22:40 ** All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
Polycarp said: Jersey, you did a couple of paragraphs on what God’s plan and man’s sin is. Would you be willing to re-post that with the Bible cites for your assertions? I’m not necessarily trying to provoke an argument, but I’d like to see what you base them on. I reserve the right to agree or respectfully disagree on the basis of my own studies. And perhaps we can learn from each other. Fair? **
[/QUOTE]
I base them on the Bible . Please tell me what exactly you don’t agree with, and I will tell you why I do. If your asking me to give you cites for the plan of God, I can tell you right now it is the Bible. That is pretty much what the Bible is about, his ultimate plan. As for the sin of man, That’s all over the Bible. Believe me Poly, I’m not grabbing this stuff out of thin air, It’s all written, and I’m most certainly not candycoating for any reason.
abstaining from blood = properly prepared beef is bled before it’s processed, so get your steaks well done
not swearing oaths = no need to swear, a simple yes your no should be good enough
giving away all of their possessions = read matthew. a man said but jesus I do follow the commandments, but what can I do to be perfect and Jesus said to give away your
possessions and follow me, but because he had great wealth, he couldn’t do it, his wealth meant more to him than God.
( this was my in a nutshell version )
giving to anyone who asks = that doesn’t mean if you ask me for a lexus I should give it to you. If you can’t do it for yourself, God doesn’t expect you to do it for the rest of the world. It means giving to the hungry, the poor, the unfortunate, the needy.
not contesting lawsuits = if you are wrongfully being sued, hopefully the truth will prevail. It doesn’t mean be an idiot and let people take advantage of you. that’s why God gave us a brain.
obeying all human laws = as long as they don’t go against God, and if you are somehow forced into something, God knows your heart. Again, we must use the brain God gave us.
I find the response of Christians to this verse to be quite frustrating. Let’s check the Bible:
Matt 5:38-41
"Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain."
(The latter verse was translated in my old Bible as something along the lines of, “if a centurion forces you to carry his pack for one mile, carry it for two.”)
Clearly “it doesn’t mean be an idiot and let people take advantage of you” isn’t a correct interpretation. Jesus is specifically telling people to resist not evil. If someone takes advantage of you, don’t resist: if the centurion forces you to go one mile, go even further than he forces you to go. It makes a lot of sense, if Jesus is supposed to be coming back within the lifetimes of some of the people who saw him die.
These verses have always been a little problematic to me. Fundamentalist Christians are real sticklers for verses about how the other guy is going to hell: the homosexuals, for example. But if Jesus clearly and unequivocally tells them to turn the other cheek, they come up with witticisms about how “you’ve only got two cheeks.” If Jesus tells them to carry a pack two miles for the centurion, and to give their coat to the man who sues for their hat, there are ways out of that too. Biblical scholars tell us that when Jesus said, “It’s easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven,” Jesus was referring to a local kind of thick rope called “camel.” The fundamentalists, meanwhile, come up with urban legends about how “the needle” was really a gate in Jerusalem which was so low that camels could only pass through on their knees. On their knees, get it?
All in all, it starts to look like the Bible isn’t so much a guide to moral behavior as a combination cudgel and license. If someone does something the fundamentalists don’t like- whether it be homosexuality or Goth fashion- the fundies can come up with some convoluted reason why the Bible is against it. The men of Sodom threatened to rape other men? Clearly the man-on-man aspect was the real problem! But what about, “he who lives by the sword will die by the sword”? Jesus obviously meant his pacifistic message to only apply to people who can’t fight back with crushing force! (Yes, a fundie told me that once.)
No, it isn’t. However, many, many people who call themselves fundamentalists don’t practice the fundamentals of Christianity as presented in the Gospels. I would say most “fundies” fall into this group. Fundamentalists who truly fit your definition have my utmost respect.
The truth of what the Gospels teach seems fairly clear to me. But I am aware that it is not so for everyone. Thus I find it somewhat dangerous to say there is some “basics” out there which exist in a vacuum to which all can agree.
If there is one truth, two people who disagree about it can not both be right, can they?
Fine. Then I’m debating with two Protestant Apologeticists. I maintain my wonder as to where you both came up with the same theological conclusions from the same obscure verse.
I don’t believe the holy scriptures contain dichotomies. Jesus was given the power to perform miracles so that people might know that what he taught was the truth, and thus “help their disbelief,” as the blind boy’s father says. Concluding from these words from this anonymous person that somehow men are too weak to overcome original sin is a major break from the theological tradition of Christianity and completely blowing this one small verse out of proportion. It would seem to me that Protestants made their conclusion first and then went hunting for scriptures to support it, and this teaching has been thus perpetuated. I don’t find that to be an unreasonable conclusion based upon the evidence at hand and your own admission that this “understanding” of this scripture is famous among Protestant “apologists.”
So, you think there are no false teachers? Isn’t the guy who insists there are no false teachers, usually a false teacher himself?
You don’t care about the truth, then?
So, you follow his teachings?
Denominations are thus born. All the more reason to beware of false teachers, don’t you agree?
As you are able? Has the Lord put a stumbling stone in your path? What do you mean by this caveat?
If you love him, then you keep his commandments. If you do not keep his commandments, then you do not love him.
It is easy to fall into despair when one sins against Hope. Presumption can cut you off from following the healthy promptings of the Holy Spirit which does wish you to die a death – a death to sin.
Why not?
I digress.
You are entitled to your opinion. However, if you ignore the rest of his teachings which explain what must be done in order to love God and neighbor, and call the two most important commandments a “summary” in order to do so, that is quite dangerous. Then these two commandments become merely empty platitudes.
The door to life is always open to us, for the Lord gave us the keys. Adhering to platitudes, which is and of themselves are devoid of specific meaning, is not the right way in.
If this is true then I am amazed. I’m surprised Opus hasn’t taken you to task on this statement yet, but if this is true I will take you at your word. But mind your tongue that you do not teach falsely.
Anytime you teach the truth, you teach something else is false. There is nothing you can do to avoid this. Jesus came to bring the sword, not peace.
Oh, I am certain it is the same spirit in any case, holy or otherwise.
The Holy Spirit is spread though the true teachings. As such, this is indeed a dogma. If you see them through a glass darkly it is only because the Spirit has not come completely upon you.
But only if you turn and be healed. There is no forgiveness without repentance.
Jesus was never not God. This is another heresy.
The scriptures are rather clear that people killed Jesus. Names are even recorded.
Heresy again. Jesus was fully God. It is impossible for him to be separated from God, for then he would not be Jesus any more.
There is no scriptural basis for your theory.
You are supposed to hate this world and your life in it for his sake. You are supposed to hate injustice and thirst for righteousness. These are good things.
There must be something which makes them all a like. They do not believe in the authority of the Pope, so they can not be Catholics. They don’t believe in the evangelical council of the perfection of charity so they can not be Free Spirits. Perhaps that is the easiest way to define them by what they are not?
Thanks for your kind words. All I can say for certain is that you have a wool coat. But there is hope for you – where ever there is despair there is always hope. Just beware of false teachers.
Look. you can maintain that true repentance does not require a person to cease sinning all you like. You asserted Websters doesn’t agree with me, yet it does. So you assert that the American Heritage dictionary doesn’t agree with me – which is fine. But the fact is that the Catholic Church, and by extension a majority of the bishops of that Church, does agree with me and has done so for at least the past 550 years. If you have misunderstood what I said I apologize for not making myself more clear.
No, it means don’t take an oath. Making promises is contrary to the law of God – because you can not know whether you can meet your promises. People who make promises to themselves or others for personal temporal gain are thus liars. If you ignore the problems of today by focusing on an uncertain future, that is dangerous also. As Jesus says of the farmer in the Sermon to the Multitudes: “You fool! Do you not know that even tonight your life will be demanded of you?”
Well, this is another clear difference in “interpretation” between Catholic and Protestant teachings. It also ignores the Sermon to the Multitudes in Luke 12 where Jesus gave this teaching to all who would be his disciples.
Of course not. You merely have to give whatever you have to give.
Then why does it say to give to anyone who asks?
If you keep the evangelical council of the perfection of charity, I am not certain what people could take from you which you have not already given to God. (As Paul says in Phillipians: “this is the mature way of looking at things.”) But still you must show your love for God by giving whatever you have left if it is demanded of you, even if it is only your shirt and coat. Yes, a Christian should be “content with food and clothing” (Paul again) but there are times when they are called to give even more.
I find it intriguing that this seems to be a ‘Catholic doctrine versus…’ debate, when you yourself are a proclaimed ‘anathema’…this isn’t ad hominem, mind you, but it does intrigue me—especially when you repeatedly warn me of false teachings.
But as I said, this is intriguing to me, and does not detract from the integrity of your statements—merely puzzles me.
I will offer a list of ‘basics’ for perusal, culled from the Bible, after this post—because it’ll probably open a new discussion entirely.
I said:
*You seem to be in pursuit of debate of what those ‘basics’ are, and imply that the ‘basics’ of the Fundamentalist (and Protestant alike) are somehow seriously in error. *
You replied:
But you are not simply disagreeing with one person. You are defending a decidedly Catholic position regarding salvific qualifications and/or misconceptions (which, as I said, I find intriguing due to your earlier assertion) while pointing a finger at an entire body of people which you label as Protestant, Fundamentalist, incorrect, etc. because they don’t agree with you.
Again, your label. I made no mention of Protestant or otherwise. You want to pin it on me based upon the Catholic church’s label, I cannot stop you.
You find it obscure.
The dichotomy lies between man’s cry for aid in his unbelief juxtaposed against God’s promise ‘whoever believes shall not perish.’ Why is that so hard to understand?
You keep throwing ‘original sin’ in there—I’m talking about man’s difficulty in having the simple faith to believe in the veracity of Christ and his promises when belief is all that is required—belief as I have already clarified above, the action verb which inspires trust, obedience and continued faith.
Men are too weak to overcome disbeliefby themselves. Even in the secular world, one cannot simply go from disbelief to belief unless there exists a change in the paradigm, usually through new evidence. Drawing THAT conclusion from this verse—far fetched? The man ASKS for HELP. And, taken in context, the culmination of this passage is a confused disciple saying ‘Um, why couldn’t we cast this demon out?’ And Jesus states, ‘This kind can only come out by prayer.’
Prayer. Asking God for help.
The Christian Dichotomy
[Trumpets]
Man must believe in God .
Man cannot believe in God without God’s help.
[/Trumpets]
In order for man to ask God for help, He must be open to the possibility of God.
If man does not believe in God, how can he ask for help?
Dichotomy.
I cannot simplify further than that.
No. I never said Protestants. You did. Again.
Ask a Catholic—‘Is belief required? Can man believe without God’s help?’
By your definition, I’ll wager you receive a ‘Protestant’ answer.
I said:
You replied:
Did I ‘insist there were no false teachers’? Again, your leap throws me into confusion—how do you interpret my statement to mean ‘there are no false teachers?’
Indulge me on this—if I’m going to talk about false teachers, I will at least MENTION them.
I am talking about denominations. Not false teachers. I do not, when I meet a believer in Christ, say ‘Oh—what denomination are you?’
I do not acknowledge their denomination in that I acknowledge the believer, and I weigh his/her offerings by his actions, by his words, in accord with the teachings of the word and the prompting of the Holy Spirit, whom I trust—“My sheep know My voice.”
I judge him by his ‘fruits,’ (love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control)—‘By their fruits you shall know them.’
If their teachings are false, I will know. I trust the Holy Spirit to lead me to test their words against scripture, that which I believe is the measuring rod by which I am to weigh the actions of one who calls themselves ‘Christian.’
Your conclusion leads me to believe that you would define a Christian by the denomination of his church—which would be not only unfair, but unscriptural.
1 Cor. 1:12-13
When I stated ‘I do not care about their denomination,’ you stated:
Another incorrect inference with little relevancy or basis, other than ‘Since he doesn’t acknowledge denominations, he must not care about the truth.’
I stated ‘I follow Christ.’ You said:
Hard to do one without the other, yes.
But then you agree with me, which confused me again. I said:
*See, I believe denominations were borne of human pride and a lack of faith in Christ and the veracity of his teaching. *
You replied:
Sure, I agree. Which I why I don’t look at denominations, but at the individual—why was it so hard for you to glean that from my post? Am I unclear? If so, I apologize–
I said:
*I am a follower of Jesus Christ, as much as I am able to be. *
I mean with all my strength. Sometimes, however, I am weak. Self-deprecation. Insecurity. Frustration. Common human foibles which distract me from trusting in my Lord for my providence, thus robbing me of peace. In these times, I am still a follower of Christ, but I am not as faithful as I could be, not relying upon him, but upon myself.
I stated:
I love him…*
You replied:
Yes.
And no.
Yes, if I love him, I will keep Him, I will keep His commandments.
But.
If you love your Dad, and he tells you to be home by midnight, and you come home at one, do you now cease to love him?
As a Christian, I will sin. I am not perfect. To assert that ‘When I sin, I do not love God’ is a bit unrealistic. Like the son who disobeys, I will have consequences. My sin may cause a loved one to be angry with me, and I will need to apologize. Or restitution may be owed someone, and I will have to pay it. This does not mean I do not love God. It means I make mistakes and am accountable for them.
Sure.
I said:
*I do not love where I should, and I do not act as I am led. *
You replied:
Sometimes, I want control over my life, rather than denying myself that which is going to give me a brief thrill, or a temporary feeling of power. Sometimes I hate surrendering my will, because I’m a very willful person.
Again—where did I say ‘Ignore the rest?’ Where did I even give this impression?
Take it at face value:
This is a summary.
You said, ‘He never gave a summary.’ The text above clearly refutes that. I never said, nor did I allude to, ‘Ignore the rest.’
Good thing I don’t blindly adhere to empty platitudes.
I said: All of those things he bade us do? Sure, I do them.
You replied:
Conceded—this was not specific enough, and I amend the generalization in favor of specificity.
The statement’s context was in regards to traditions,—specifically, the traditions of baptism, communion, assembly, and prayer—the volitional actions Christ wished us to continue for purposes of affirming and reflecting upon the nature of his sacrifice.
I do not mean to claim ‘I do everything Christ commanded us to do at all times’—as I have previously stated several times. I am not perfect.
As far as ‘minding my tongue to not teach falsely,’ I hope the reader grants me the same amount of leniency in clarification that they do you, friend jmullaney.
I stated: It is not for me to condemn another’s traditions, or I myself will be led to divisiveness.
To which you replied:
Romans 14 speaks of traditions and the condemnation of those believers who worship differently, but continue abiding in Christ—traditions is what we’re speaking of here. I’ll post the chapter if you like, but for the sake of brevity I’ll simply refer the reader to that chapter in it’s entirety.
Fair enough.
I said:
*If I spoke out of pure dogmatism, I could kill entire generations’ faith because I’d be an automaton spouting and perpetuating second-, third-, fourth- and ninetieth-hand convictions which I don’t even understand. *
You replied:
Reliance upon the dogmatism of a church can be devastating. (Note the could in my statement.) Now note the WHOLE of my statement. If I merely follow dogmatism blindly, I am ignorant. I do not have a relationship with Christ through second-hand convictions. Merely going through the motions does not grant me enlightenment of purpose—which YOU affirmed earlier.
Teaching people to be imitators rather than encouraging them to become believers is heinous.
**SIDEBAR: **
Out of curiosity:
jmullaney, do you believe the Holy Spirit is living?
[/SIDEBAR]
I said:
*And His sacrifice was powerful enough to take every screw up I have made, and every screw up I will ever make, and wipe it out. *
You replied:
Ok.
I said:
*Because God loved me enough to allow his little boy to experience death for me, to experience SEPARATION from Him for me, that I might not have to be separated from Him when it came to be my time to leave this place. *
You replied:
Again, I never said he wasn’t. But:
Do we agree in a triune God, jmullaney? If so, you do agree that Christ the man was not the totality of God, but the personhood of God—who, in his time on earth, prayed to God the Father, not praying to himself, or to the Holy Spirit?
The personhood of God, Jesus Christ was separated from God the Father.
And it is absolutely scriptural.
I’ll address that in a bit.
I said:
*People say ‘God killed His son.’
No. *
You replied:
People killed Christ. To us, the man was utterly dead.
Incomprehensible for us that he should live again.
But God did not kill his son. ‘Death had no hold over him.’
He gave him over to sin, allowing that separation to occur, knowing full well he would not remain separated from him.
Separation from God, acting against God = “sin.”
Theme throughout the bible, from Adam through Revelation.
Hardly heresy.
And now, to that point.
I said:
*He simply allowed him to experience total separation from the Greatest love in existence.
Then brought him back. *
None?
Strong’s
Absolutely no basis for my ‘theory.’
Why did Christ ask that the cup be taken from him, if no fear of separation? He knew he’d live again. He knew God’s will was good—after all, you said it yourself, he was God.
He had never, ever, been separated from the Father.
“He was with him in the beginning.”
Jesus took on the sins of humanity. God, the Father, can have no part of sin. ‘In Him, there is no darkness
“…your heavenly Father is perfect.” Matthew 5:48
God is without sin.
“God is a God of light; in Him, there is no darkness at all.” I John 1:5
Absolutely no sin.
“For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?” 2 Cor. 6:14
He can have no part of sin.
“God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” * 2 Cor. 5:21*
‘He became sin for us,’ ‘God ‘gave him over to sin,’ are all scriptural references—remember, God can have no part of sin.
Until Christ, the sacrifice for atonement was to take a perfect animal and offer it, thereby imbuing that animal with the sin committed. Christ became that perfect lamb, taking on the sin of the world—but in order to do so, he needed to experience that sin, hence ‘Why have you forsaken me?’ If he were to simply abolish sin without taking it upon himself, there would be no need for sacrifice! He took on the sin, and in doing so God the Son, became, in those moments, separated from God the Father.
There is quite a good deal of support for this ‘heresy’ in scripture. If you want an essay, I’ll post one to a different thread. But I have already sufficiently refuted your assertion that my heretical ‘theory’ has no scriptural basis. There’s plenty.
Unless they tell you specifically right away what they believe, the easiest way to define them is meeting them one at a time and getting to know them.
Other than that, it’s presupposition.
So you’re uncertain as to whether or not my coat of wool is mine as a sheep in Christ’s flock, or an snug-fitting pelt to mask the cunning wolf beneath.
I don’t know your past, but I perceive your wariness—and it is entirely valid in a time when some of the worst grievances to Christianity lies not on liberal message boards, but within the very church who would call itself ‘Christian.’
There is one God, (Deuteronomy 6:4, Matthew 5:48, Matthew 28:19).[ul][li]who is infinitely perfect,[/li][li]existing eternally in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.[/ul][/li]Jesus Christ is the true God and the true man. (Philippians 2:6-11, Luke 1:36-38, I Peter 3:18, Hebrews 2:9, Romans 5:9, Acts 2:23,24, Hebrews 8:1, Matthew 26:64)[ul][li]He was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.[/li][li]He died upon the cross, the Just for the unjust,[/li][li]as a substitutionary sacrifice,[/li][li]and all who believe in Him are justified on the ground of His shed blood.[/li][li]He arose from the dead according to the Scriptures.[/li][li]He is now at the right hand of Majesty on high as our great High Priest.[/li][li]He will come again to establish His kingdom, righteousness and peace.[/ul][/li]The Holy Spirit is a divine person, (John 14:15-18, John 16:13, Acts 1:9, John 16:7-11)[ul][li]sent to dwell, guide, teach, empower the believer,[/li][li]and convince the world of sin, of righteousness, and of judgement.[/ul][/li]The Old and New Testaments, (II Peter 1:20-21, II Timothy 3:15-16)[ul][li]inerrant as originally given, were verbally inspired by God and are a complete revelation of His will for the salvation of men.[/li][li]They constitute the divine and only rule of Christian faith and practice.[/ul][/li]Man (Genesis 1:27, Romans 3:23, I Corinthians 15:20-23, Revelation 21:8, Revelation 21:1-4)[ul][li]was originally created in the image and likeness of God;[/li][li]he fell through disobedience, incurring thereby both physical and spiritual death, and[/li][li]All men are born with a sinful nature,[/li][li]are separated from the life of God,[/li][li]and can be saved only through the atoning work of the Lord Jesus Christ.[/li][li]The portion of the unrepentant and unbelieving is existence forever in conscious torment;[/li][li]and that of the believer, in everlasting joy and bliss.[/ul][/li]Salvation (Titus 3:4-7)[ul][li]has been provided through Jesus Christ for all men; and those who[/li]repent and believe in Him are born again of the Holy Spirit, receive the gift of eternal life, and become the children of God.[/ul] Living in Christ (I Thessalonians 5:23, Acts 1:8, Romans 6:1-14)[ul][li]It is the will of God that each believer should be filled with the Holy Spirit and be sanctified wholly,[/li][li]being separated from sin and the world and fully dedicated to the will of God, thereby receiving power for holy living and effective service.[/li][li]This is both a crises and a progressive experience wrought in the life of the believer subsequent to conversion.[/ul][/li]Healing (Matthew 8:16-17, James 5:13-16)[ul][li]Provision is made in the redemptive work of the Lord Jesus Christ for[/li]the healing of the mortal body.
[li]Prayer for the sick and anointing with oil are taught in the Scriptures and are privileges for the Church in this present age.[/ul][/li]The Church (Ephesians 1:22-23, Matthew 28:19-20, Acts 2:41-47)[ul][li]consists of all those who believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, are redeemed through His blood, and are born again of the Holy Spirit. Christ is the Head of the Body, the Church,[/li][li]which has been commissioned by Him to go into all the world as a witness, preaching the gospel to all nations.[/li][li]The local church is a body of believers in Christ who are joined together for the worship of God, for edification through the Word of God, for prayer, fellowship, the proclamation of the gospel, and observance of the ordinances of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.[/ul][/li]Resurrection (I Corinthians 15:20-23, John 5:28-29)[ul][li]There shall be a bodily resurrection of the just and of the unjust; for the former, a resurrection unto life;[/li]for the latter, a resurrection unto judgment.[/ul]
The aforementioned ‘Basics’ are provided in effort to address jmullaney’s ‘basics in a vacuum’ premise.
This is not an effort to ‘proselytize’ or to ‘convert’ by grandstanding tenets of the Christian faith.
The preceding is merely a brief synopsis of tenets which are found in the Bible and describe the paradigm, if not in entirety, of the believer in Christ–be they Catholic, Protestant or otherwise.
The tenets are common to the Christian, if not offered in a more simplistic format than a statement of doctrine. I by no means wish to supplant or attempt to undermine the doctrines of individual churches–merely to point out commonalities between denominations which are often depicted ‘at odds.’ I write this disclaimer for those who have skimmed the preceding posts and are wondering why I’ve brought this list aboard.
