Measured in Inevitability
There are seven Continents. One has no government to speak of, and no divisions-- at least not the kind that foment conflict. It is united in its isolation and its inhospitable climate... no one, aside from the scientist and the strange, really want to live there year round. And even the scientist doesn't want to stay there and make a life for himself.
Another is a nation unto itself. It has a single government, and is unified in national pride and spirit.
Then there is North and South America, Africa, Europe and Asia.
Asia is rife with divisions which has resulted in bloodshed throughout human history. Especially in this last century.
Africa is a veritable basket case of divisions, feuds, petty tyrants and quasi-kings. With the exception of South Africa, life is cheap among the nations of Africa. Africa has seen ethnic cleansing, genocide, slavery, torture, mutilation, rape, AIDS, starvation, depots, famine, neglect, ignorance... and so much more.
Yet for all the divisions between ethnic groups, religious groups, and national borders, Africa is entertaining the idea of a continental union-- perhaps inspired by Europe and the success of the Euro --encompassing the entire continent. There are many hurdles to overcome before such a vision is even remotely possible. For now, call it a Continental Pipe-dream.
There has also been talk among some South American leaders of creating a European Style union there, encompassing the whole of the Continent... Chavez among them, though I suspect he envisions himself as king over such a fiefdom.
Then there is Europe, whose union is nothing short of remarkable. That they have advanced to the point where they share a single currency! Ratification of a Constitution is not far off. Already the Euro is a greater monetary powerhouse than the US dollar, and has been for the last couple of years.
Europe is seeking to take the lead in Peace Talks between Israel and the greater Middle East. They desire to extend their membership to Turkey, Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Libya... all the lands once ruled by the Roman Empire, though in its present incarnation I don't see Libya, Egypt, OR Syria joining the EU-- Ghadaffi has expressed great interest in creating an African Union. But Israel... Israel greatly desires membership.
A poll from February of this year showed 75% of Israelis 'would like Israel to be part of the European Union'. Only 11% said they would leave Israel if granted EU citizenship-- though the article did not say 'to where.'
Lastly there's North America: the United States, Canada and Mexico. Talk of a North American Union with open borders and a common currency is already making people both nervous and angry. There are also many who scoff at the idea, saying no such plan is in the works. And yet many of America's policy meetings between her member countries seem aimed at loosening the borders that separate the three, rather than strengthening them.
Adjusting tack, the European Union, even after it finally adopts a Constitution will still not be that prophetic 'Revived Roman Empire' described in the Bible. But the EU must be in place for that Empire to arise. Europe, whether anyone reading this cares to believe, will supersede the United States in terms of economic and military power. And it will be in our lifetime.
The world is changing. It's never stopped, in fact. I asked in Unpopular whether anyone truly believed America would be free 20 or 30 years from now. Many of the responces pick up the ball and run with the belief America will shine even greater in years to come-- and that may be true --declaring we will be MORE Free. Mark even told me to "chin-up," that things aren't really as bad as they seem. But I'm reminded of a quote from "The Matrix"...
For some of you, the idea of "prophecy being fulfilled in our lifetime" is probably a ridiculous notion, never mind the fact that Israel became a nation again, after 2500 years of dispersement. Never mind the fact that Israel now controls Jerusalem, whose history extends as far back as the book of Genesis.
The Euro is gaining in strength-- it is already worth more than the dollar. Europe will soon ratify a Constitution. She will increase in stature while America decreases. Petty squabbling among America's elite will result in a decrease of personal liberty... it's already happening. It happened under FDR's watch, Kennedy's watch, Nixon's, Carter's, Reagan's, Clinton's, Bush's... The changes have been incremental and so small as to not draw much attention, but the changes are apparent to anyone looking. Change is a simple fact of life. In point of fact, Change is the one UN-changing force in the lives of men.
Do we have freedoms today we didn't yesterday? Of course. But at what price? What was the trade off? I can tell you what the trade off WILL be... in due course.
National Sovereignty.
Just as over geological Ages the Continents drifted, deepening the gulfs between, so too have they begun now to drift back, metaphorically speaking, in an ebb and flow measured in Millenia. The world is getting smaller. Language is no longer a barrier.
The work at Babel was abandoned circa 5000 years ago. But 'Babel' is beginning to rise again. Both figuratively AND literally. Babylon is rising... from ignominity to new world wonder. And the spiritual work that was abandoned in her some 5000 years ago will also rise with her.
Say what you will. The evidence is all around you. I can't make you open you eyes. I can't make you believe.
But I made you read, didn't I?
Another is a nation unto itself. It has a single government, and is unified in national pride and spirit.
Then there is North and South America, Africa, Europe and Asia.
Asia is rife with divisions which has resulted in bloodshed throughout human history. Especially in this last century.
Africa is a veritable basket case of divisions, feuds, petty tyrants and quasi-kings. With the exception of South Africa, life is cheap among the nations of Africa. Africa has seen ethnic cleansing, genocide, slavery, torture, mutilation, rape, AIDS, starvation, depots, famine, neglect, ignorance... and so much more.
Yet for all the divisions between ethnic groups, religious groups, and national borders, Africa is entertaining the idea of a continental union-- perhaps inspired by Europe and the success of the Euro --encompassing the entire continent. There are many hurdles to overcome before such a vision is even remotely possible. For now, call it a Continental Pipe-dream.
There has also been talk among some South American leaders of creating a European Style union there, encompassing the whole of the Continent... Chavez among them, though I suspect he envisions himself as king over such a fiefdom.
Then there is Europe, whose union is nothing short of remarkable. That they have advanced to the point where they share a single currency! Ratification of a Constitution is not far off. Already the Euro is a greater monetary powerhouse than the US dollar, and has been for the last couple of years.
Europe is seeking to take the lead in Peace Talks between Israel and the greater Middle East. They desire to extend their membership to Turkey, Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Libya... all the lands once ruled by the Roman Empire, though in its present incarnation I don't see Libya, Egypt, OR Syria joining the EU-- Ghadaffi has expressed great interest in creating an African Union. But Israel... Israel greatly desires membership.
A poll from February of this year showed 75% of Israelis 'would like Israel to be part of the European Union'. Only 11% said they would leave Israel if granted EU citizenship-- though the article did not say 'to where.'
Lastly there's North America: the United States, Canada and Mexico. Talk of a North American Union with open borders and a common currency is already making people both nervous and angry. There are also many who scoff at the idea, saying no such plan is in the works. And yet many of America's policy meetings between her member countries seem aimed at loosening the borders that separate the three, rather than strengthening them.
Adjusting tack, the European Union, even after it finally adopts a Constitution will still not be that prophetic 'Revived Roman Empire' described in the Bible. But the EU must be in place for that Empire to arise. Europe, whether anyone reading this cares to believe, will supersede the United States in terms of economic and military power. And it will be in our lifetime.
The world is changing. It's never stopped, in fact. I asked in Unpopular whether anyone truly believed America would be free 20 or 30 years from now. Many of the responces pick up the ball and run with the belief America will shine even greater in years to come-- and that may be true --declaring we will be MORE Free. Mark even told me to "chin-up," that things aren't really as bad as they seem. But I'm reminded of a quote from "The Matrix"...
"Do you hear that Mister Anderson? That is the sound of Inevitability."
For some of you, the idea of "prophecy being fulfilled in our lifetime" is probably a ridiculous notion, never mind the fact that Israel became a nation again, after 2500 years of dispersement. Never mind the fact that Israel now controls Jerusalem, whose history extends as far back as the book of Genesis.
The Euro is gaining in strength-- it is already worth more than the dollar. Europe will soon ratify a Constitution. She will increase in stature while America decreases. Petty squabbling among America's elite will result in a decrease of personal liberty... it's already happening. It happened under FDR's watch, Kennedy's watch, Nixon's, Carter's, Reagan's, Clinton's, Bush's... The changes have been incremental and so small as to not draw much attention, but the changes are apparent to anyone looking. Change is a simple fact of life. In point of fact, Change is the one UN-changing force in the lives of men.
Do we have freedoms today we didn't yesterday? Of course. But at what price? What was the trade off? I can tell you what the trade off WILL be... in due course.
National Sovereignty.
"Do you hear that Mister Anderson? That is the sound of Inevitability."
Just as over geological Ages the Continents drifted, deepening the gulfs between, so too have they begun now to drift back, metaphorically speaking, in an ebb and flow measured in Millenia. The world is getting smaller. Language is no longer a barrier.
The work at Babel was abandoned circa 5000 years ago. But 'Babel' is beginning to rise again. Both figuratively AND literally. Babylon is rising... from ignominity to new world wonder. And the spiritual work that was abandoned in her some 5000 years ago will also rise with her.
Say what you will. The evidence is all around you. I can't make you open you eyes. I can't make you believe.
But I made you read, didn't I?
from the mind of... Eric | 2:53 PM
68 Comments:
"Many of the responces pick up the ball and run with the belief America will shine even greater in years to come-- and that may be true --declaring we will be MORE Free."
To clarify at least my position: I think the US and the world with it will be in dire straits in 30-100 years. I was just disagreeing with the notion that somehow progressives are seriously hurting liberties.
We've built our economy (and the world is striving mightily to model their economies on ours) on an unsustainable base of overconsumption. When oil truly peaks and there is nothing to replace it, economies will start hurting pretty sorely. Some may even crash.
I don't expect that to happen here because of our massive military and lack of desire to change. I suspect that we'll try to foist the worst disasters off on the third world nations. Now if water and oil become scarce issues, I'll own up to not being genius enough to know what all the ramifications will be, but I don't suspect they will be good.
I have some hope (and my prayers are thus directed) that the peaking of oil will happen slowly but steadily enough that people will realize we can no longer base an economy on it and people will pull together - sort of in revival or victory garden mode - to make the appropriate lifestyle adjustments to a more sustainable economy that we won't be led in to massive oil and water wars.
So, all of that to say that I'm not especially optimistic about the future of our liberties and lifestyles, but I am cautiously optimistic. And regardless, any serious threat that will come our way will be to our own - all of our own - overconsumptive, unsustainable lifestyle choices and not the progressive boogeyman.
Dan, what is spoken of in the Bible is no boogeyman. Tell me where it speaks of the world getting better before the return of Jesus and the Millennial reign. There have been times of spared judgment, but that came because of repentance and a return to the Lord, which does not seem to be happening now.
Sister mom2, we need repentance now just as surely as we have always needed it. We need to repent of our warring ways, of our consumerism, of our dependence on wealth, of living unsustainably and in ways that harm others.
I have no beef with what you've said. That is what I said, too, just not with the same emphasis.
Dan, returning to the Lord has more to do with the heart than with actions, the actions and words will follow the condition of the heart. I see too much emphasis on works when we get so involved in politics, whereas trust in God through Jesus His Son involves the Holy Spirit, Who will lead us and show us the right way. We need as much compassion toward brothers and sisters in Christ as we also need for our enemies. Unity in the Body was Christ's prayer.
Many factors are present in determing the strength of one currency over another. Those factors change for a variety of reasons. Our nation's economy is strong at present, and barring any problems that should affect it negatively, it should gain strength on the world market. "Should" being the operative word.
Whether or not the EU becomes a dominant force also relies on many, often competing, factors. At this point in time, I wouldn't bet the farm. From what I've heard regarding the EU and drafts of Constitutions (and I offer no supporting evidence, as I don't have any I can easiy access), I don't think I'd trade what we have for what they think they can offer. That's not to say that to join with others isn't a good idea for some countries, but the relationships we now enjoy are about as tight as I'd like them in comparison with any EU type alternative.
As to our future with possible reductions in resources, we have a history of developing alternatives as circumstances have demanded them. As long as the market is allowed to work it's magic in as unfettered a manner as possible, the oil situation doesn't particularly concern me. I don't feel it has the ability of leaving us high and dry should it slowly evaporate. Certainly if it's cut off abruptly, we'd be in a tight spot. But as things run their natural courses, we've always shown the ability to adapt, and I see no reason to suspect that will ever change. That too is inevitable.
"the oil situation doesn't particularly concern me."
What do economists tell us when demand increases and supply decreases? Prices go up. Prices will go up and up significantly because demand has been increasing because it is necessary.
With what shall we replace our petroleum that fuels our system? What energy source is available in sufficient supplies to meet the demand?
Prudency/conservancy demands that we consider such factors before building a system dependent upon the answer.
I merely point out certain socio-political/economic trends that agree with what God has to say about things to come.
The world is trending toward globalization. Saturday's "Earth-Fest" concert is a prime example. But there are larger things in motion here that most people don't see. That is what I'm pointing to here.
People tend to scoff and say, 'Nah, it's just coincidental, not some pie-in-the-sky clap-trap about "Raptures" and "Armageddon."' But before any play can be performed, the stage must be set.
Perhaps it's just too difficult for most people to see because we're all on the stage doing our bit. But the director is not on stage. He's somewhere up the aisle watching our progress. And when he sees everything is set and the appointed time has arrived, we'll be ordered 'cleared from the stage.' The lights will then dim, and the actors will take the stage, read their lines, and move toward their predetermined, "scripted" ends.
Right now, I couldn't care less what anyone thinks of me for suggesting the Rapture is imminent; that nothing need happen prophetically before that event occurs. Your approval or disapproval doesn't mean anything to me... your "scripted end" does.
My point is this: Anyone 'Left Behind' having heard and understood the Gospel-- and rejected it! --will find it impossible to avoid hell. The Bible CLEARLY states in 2 Thessalonians 2:8-12...
"And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness."
When the rapture does occur and you find yourself still here having known, understood, and rejected the Gospel, you WILL believe what ever lie Satan gives you. You will curse God for every plague he showers upon the earth, and you will eventually find yourself in the Lake of Fire... there will be no hope of salvation for you.
There will be a great harvest of souls for Jesus during this time the Bible calls "the Great Tribulation" but you will not be part of it.
I can't make you open your eyes to the truth. I can't even make you believe. But I've made you read...
Yes EL, you made me read to the end of your self-congratulatory ode. Your arrogance stifles any discussion we might have about Armageddon or prophecy. You act as a pharisee preaching on street corners so that others can see your piety. You refuse to dirty your hands with the emotions of others. You have no empathy. If heaven is to be filled with uncharitable, smug, villiago's like you then I want no part of it.
The most charitable/Christian thing you have ever done with this blog is the plug for the Wollemi Pine.
Did you read all that?
ben T., Don't excuse your own unbelief on anyone else. You have the freedom to make choices and if you want to accuse others of pharisee actions, then you are just looking for excuses. I pray that you will get your eyes open before it is too late.
My answer to "Unpopular" is unequivocally NO! Not the kind of freedoms the generations before us experienced in the U.S.
And you are right about the assault on our National Sovereignty. It is a cultural warfare that would become more obvious to all if the masses would pay closer attention to real world events and sift out the "spin".
Hmm. The world has "trended toward globalization" basically since it started. Bable. Rome. Holy Roman Empire. EU. The USA's own renewed imperical tendencies.
Dude. I have never understood why any Christian would focus so much on ESCAPING this world, rather than concentrating on putting hand to plow and advancing the kingdom. That means sharing the Gospel, sure, but it also means loving wastefully. Getting hung up on End Times is selfish, by definition. I just don't get it.
As for your general fretting and worry, about the alleged sorry state of society, or whatEVER, hat is the source of that? If the love of Christ dwells in you -- in your heart, and your head, and in your hand on the plow, and the legs that walk behind it -- you should be at peace, even with any doubts.
Billy Graham, in his newspaper column today, is appropo:
Things change, but God's love never will
By DR. BILLY GRAHAM
SYNDICATED COLUMNIST
DEAR DR. GRAHAM: Recently, our daughter had our first grandson, and I have found myself worrying a lot about the kind of world he will face. Do you think the world will be a better place in half a century? -- Mrs. A.M.
MRS. A.M.: No one can predict the future, of course -- although it is reasonable to assume that in some ways life probably will be easier in half a century, given our present rate of technological and medical advances.
But the Bible tells us that some things never change, no matter how advanced or sophisticated we are. For example, God never changes -- and He will be just the same half a century from now as He is today: all-powerful, all-loving, all-just, all-knowing and so forth.
"I the Lord do not change" (Malachi 3:6).
Nor does human nature change. Yes, we may grow better educated or more skilled, but down inside we are still sinners, and we still have the capacity for both great good and great evil. I wish I could promise you that the world will be at peace half a century from now -- but I can't, because human greed and hatred and jealousy will still be with us. As the Bible says, "There is no one righteous, not even one" (Romans 3:10).
But one thing will not change -- and that is Christ's power to forgive and to change our hearts from within. Don't allow yourself to be consumed with worry about the world your grandson may face, but pray for him, that the day will come when he gives his life to Christ and discovers in Him the strength he will need to meet life's challenges, no matter what they may be.
"what is the source of that?"
The source, ER, is a personal recognition that time is short. I'm not worried for myself, but I am worried for people like BenT, who happens to be someone I care about-- even when he calls me a Pharisee. And he is not the only one.
I can't know how many people actually stop by and read, but judging by the counter, I'd say 'more than this time last year.' I suspect I'm not convincing anyone who actually comments here, but for those who do not-- who simply read and move on --I have to make a case for Jesus and His gift of salvation. Not every post does this, but then I'm not a perfect... I get caught up in other issues that won't amount to a hill of beans 50 years from now.
Billy Graham is a wise man in the Lord. I respect that, and I happen to agree with his assessment. Perhaps I come off as too worrisome; for myself and my own future, so allow me here to correct that. I'm not worried for myself, my country, my rights, freedoms, my guitars, what-have-you. All these things are temporal, and I'll get any of these things back in the end-- assuming I really want them when I get home.
But I can't let BenT go without a fight. I can't let ANYONE go without a fight.
There's a guy BenT and I work with who goes to church on Sundays, but "GD" comes out of his mouth 20-30 times a shift. Is he saved? Just because he goes to church? If one could get saved that way, there'd be no need to stand on street corners and look like a fool. Better to be a fool for Christ that a fool suffering an eternity of punishments.
I've asked this man more than once to please not use my Lord's name as a cuss-word... it works for about a day.
But I like this guy in spite of that. I've asked him about his church, what he thinks about using Gos'd name as a cuss-word, and he understands that he shouldn't use this "word".
Now, he doesn't read this blog. But there are plenty of people out there who do, who may get something from the illustrations and observations I present.
I know time is short. You can bet Billy Graham knows time is short. And anyone with even a marginal grasp of biblical Prophecy knows that time is short. But I suspect that many do not recognize in current events the seeds of conditions that allow for prophetic fulfillment.
So, that's what the source of "that" is. Thank you for the opportunity to clarify my position and intent.
BenT:
I'm sorry you feel this way, especially that you think of me even remotely pharisaical. This is the only street corner I stand on. To my own shame, it's the only one I feel comfortable standing on... the only one I feel adequate to the task on.
I've been going over my post and comment trying to find arrogance... perhaps the fact that I can't find any means I am obtuse. But my intent is not to offend you. Rather, it is to point you in a direction that will save you from the sad fate of far too many people. I don't want you to be like me, I want you to be the man God wants you to be.
"I the Lord do not change" (Malachi 3:6).
That is a great verse! However, I think He is speaking about more than His love. His feelings about sin and justice are the same also, and He will not always hold back punishment. He is coming again as Savior & Lord and Judge.
No one knows when that will be and we that know Him as Savior should not be consumed with worry, nor should we be satisfied knowing that many do not know Him as Savior and are headed for eternal punishment. I think if you knew most of us "fundies" as you like to call us, we are average people living normal lives, working, giving, enjoying our loved ones and friends.....just like you, ER.
OK.
Call me once bitten, twice shy.
Hal Lindsay and other End-Timers had my attention in the '70s and early '80s. I bit.
I now do not care whether "time is short" -- but what I mean is that I do not believe that time is any "shorter" now than it's ever been. Look at all the tea leaves ya want. I think the cottage industry that's grown up around the kind of "prophecy" that tries to line up Scripture with the newspaper is just silly at best, and actually detrimental at worst.
Ben T. and anyone else needs to know one dang thing: We all are one heartbeat away from death. Anything beyond that, IMHO, is just wood, hay and stubble, and not worth creating division over.
One other point: I remember one of the preachers at the church I grew up in, who would just agonize, from the pulpit, over "the lost" he perceived were in the pews. In retrospect, I think that 1., there weren't as many "lost" as he thought, maybe not ANY in that small congregation. 2., his agonizing was rooted in self; he wanted to see peoople saved; but he wanted to be the one who delivered the message and in fact dismissed some others' assurance of salvation from encounters with other churches and denominations.
OK. One more point: To see you judge a man's relationship with God based on the fact that, for however long, he may have had the curse of the habit of using bad language, even taking the Lord's name in vain, tells me you're still apt to be taking names and keeping score, when that's God's job. If you're offended by the language, by all means aske him to refrain; but I wouldn't dare confuse my feelings with what's going on in someone else's heart.
I know of which I speak. Such use of language is among the thorns in my own flesh. I have been accursed with the habit of cursing since grade school.
On Malachi 3:6. It *is* a great verse. But so is the one that reminds us that we all see through a glass darkly. I believe the darkness, that is, the distortion, of our glass changes over time. God doesn't change, I'll accept. Humankind's general perception of God has changed. I don't believe God has ever been as all-fired MAD as some thought, and think, any more than I believe the other extreme, that anything goes! There is one thing that does not go: Willful separation of oneself from God for whatever reason, be it guilt, feelings of failure, pride, sexual orientation or whatever.
"Such use of language is among the thorns in my own flesh. I have been accursed with the habit of cursing since grade school."
For myself, I didn't pick up the cursing habit until way AFTER I became a Christian. As Mark Twain said, "Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer." or, again, "When angry, count to four. When very angry, swear."
Your arrogance stems from your unshakable belief that you have the only true version of christianity and revelation inside of you. You feel free to judge and sentence everyone you meet. You believe with not just fully but over-fully that the truth of the creator has been revealed to you. You speak as if you know the deepest thoughts of your deity. Some of the apostles thought to see armegeddon, So did some of the inquisitors, and the puritans, and the civil war soldiers. The preachers in the sixties preached the end days. But to you has been revealed that REALLY NOW is the time. I don't need your scare tactics, but you need some of ER's humility.
Is it guilt that provokes such rebukes of speech such as our host's? I just don't get it. Why is it always seen as "keeping score" or "knowing the deepest thoughts of your deity"? Why isn't it ever, "Thanks for your input. I try my best." Even if you think the dude's full of shit I doubt that there's any malice in his intentions, but some seem to take that tack. As I've mentioned at other opportunities, God has revealed a lot to us in Scripture as to how to live on earth and with each other and there's really not that much in the way of gray areas that isn't invented by mankind.
The point may be put forth a little strongly. Signs of the end may only be signs and the end still many generations away. I prefer to keep the thought in mind that "death comes like a thief in the night" and we must always be vigilant and on our toes morally speaking. If we always live by the Word of God, accept Christ as our Savior, and live as if we mean it, we should come out alright.
Can a man's language condemn him? Of course it can. Will it? That's up to God. Personally, I gave up using the Lord's name in vain about twenty years ago. It's amazing how easily it will slip out my face if I'm not in control of my emotions. Good thing I'm a relatively mellow guy. But I'm ashamed when I fail to control myself. Praise God He has sent us His Son, our Savior! But I know one who doesn't make any effort and relies on his belief that because he claims to have accepted Christ as his Savior, he's golden. There is little outward manifestation of his alleged belief. For his sake, I hope it's as easy as he thinks it is. Somehow, I doubt it. I don't think that's arrogance. I don't think Eric is being arrogant either. Is it arrogant to believe one isn't arrogant?
In science, in news, in business, in relationships, etc. Excessive certainty is a sign of arrogance. In religion a field with no verifiable facts, excessive certainty is an even greater sign of a shallowness of thought. To my mind people who think they KNOW what their deity wants have the least belief of all. They seem to me to substitute belief and trust with certainty. I see this trait in EL. I don't believe his current faith gives him happiness. I think the voices of guidance he listens to are the harshest and shallowest voices of christianity. The anger he expresses here do not represent to me a comforting spiritual faith. If my harsh words will sway him from this course, then harsh language I will use. Notice in EL's posts recently how little compassion he has had. None for the people of Turkey. None for those in Iraq. None for homosexuals. None for politicians. None for democrats. How can he be christian when he calls strife upon others. I fear that if he is to be judged by his professed beliefs he will fall short. If he examines himself and doesn't see these traits then that can only be described as the highest arrogance.
---
The benefit of being an atheist or agnostic is you are constantly examining your own self to see if you measure to your own highest standard. There is no devil or temptress to blame your failing on. The misfortunes I fail to heal I am personally responsible for.
Re, "If we always live by the Word of God, accept Christ as our Savior, and live as if we mean it, we should come out alright."
Dude, this summation is neither faith, nor works; there is no promise, and no hope. Only a "we should come out all right"? Gah.
And no matter how many times you say it, the Bible is NOT clear on very many things at all. Of course, we part right here: You and zillions of others insist that it is "God's revelation," when I and millions others say it is man's record of his encounters with the Divine, which are totally different things.
EL, and you, MA, apparently, see Christianity as adherence to a set of beliefs, and I see it as a relationship with God, and man, through Christ. With the first way, you have to be right or you're fried. With the other way, you are free to live and love and BE WRONG about the details because you live under God's Grace, not in fear of God's wrath -- and where the Good News in that??
I think you guys need to give up and get saved. :-)
Now, everyone please rise and turn to page 240 in your hymnal and join in singing, "Just As I Am."
And, as you sing, I invite you to open up your heart and let God in. God knows your frustrations, God knows your fears. God wants to free you from all of that.
Come now, sinners, won't you step forward and give up all that sin and grief?
Just as I am, without one plea,
But that thy blood was shed for me
and that thou biddest me, come to thee
Oh Lamb, of God, I come.
I come...
You know, the more haunting (to me) "hymn of invitation" is "I Surrender All." I used to think of "worldly pleasures all forsaken" as wealth, things, and the usual drinkin' and dancin' and all. This hymn gave me a white-knuckled grip on the back of the pew in front of me more than a few times as a teen and a young man trying to find a way in a capitalistic, selfish-by-definition society, and trying to mesh reality with the high ideals and call to lowliness of the Gospel. As I grow older, "worldly pleasures" are more things like false confidence, presumed understanding and sheer hubris, and cultural and church habits, limitations and comforts, which I still cling to but am more likely nowadays to surrender than not. It's not what you don't do, and it's not what you don't have. It's what you do do with what you do have.
All to Jesus I surrender;
all to him I freely give;
I will ever love and trust him,
in his presence daily live.
Refrain:
I surrender all, I surrender all,
all to thee, my blessed Savior,
I surrender all.
2. All to Jesus I surrender;
humbly at his feet I bow,
worldly pleasures all forsaken;
take me, Jesus, take me now.
(Refrain)
3. All to Jesus I surrender;
make me, Savior, wholly thine;
fill me with thy love and power;
truly know that thou art mine.
(Refrain)
4. All to Jesus I surrender;
Lord, I give myself to thee;
fill me with thy love and power;
let thy blessing fall on me.
(Refrain)
5. All to Jesus I surrender;
now I feel the sacred flame.
O the joy of full salvation!
Glory, glory, to his name!
(Refrain)
Definitely, I Surrender All is a more pleasant, singable, yet challenging of the two invitational hymns. I just went for Just as I Am because of the sheer repetition of it.
I don't know about where you're from, but in my part of the world, there were three JAIA's sung for every ISA's...
My personal fave is Pass Me Not...
Pass me not, O gentle Savior,
Hear my humble cry;
While on others Thou art calling,
Do not pass me by.
Refrain:
Savior, Savior,
Hear my humble cry,
While on others Thou are calling,
Do not pass me by.
2. Let me at a throne of mercy
Find a sweet relief;
Kneeling there in deep contrition,
Help my unbelief.
3. Trusting only in Thy merit,
Would I seek Thy face;
Heal my wounded, broken spirit,
Save me by Thy grace.
Do we need to offer an explanation for the non-evangelicals out there?
"In science... Excessive certainty is a sign of arrogance."
And yet "the Left" and envirowackos of every stripe all claim Man is responsible for the polar Ice capsmelting, for polar bears drowning, for the oppressive heatwave currently afflicting this nation....
In science... excessive certainty is a sign of arrogance. Hmmm, it looks like I agree with you in this respect.
But try selling that to Albert Gore Jr.
Yeah, good ole Al! He's making a career of arrogance.
On Gore: Prophets ... without honor ... own country, etc., etc.
BOMBASTIC prophets, at that!
I think he's far more concerned with "profit".
I think y'all wouldn't recognize an Old Testemant-style propheht if he walked up to your door and said REPENT.
Don't go and get all roiled up, ER, but I thought you and Dan were the ones that had put the Old Testament in moth balls. I hope you have had a change of heart about it. :)
Nope. I've put the Holiness Codes in mothballs. As well as the accounts of God "blessing" his people by committing genocide on their enemies.
But the prophets are still the prophets, and to be taken seriously but not literally, and certainly not to be mistaken for sideshow seers -- and like our own Christian prophet, Yeshua, sorely misunderstood.
No roiling here, Mom2. Just thinkin' as usual -- and NEVER accepting humans' words on paper, or uttered, without question. Not even the prophets.
"Don't go and get all roiled up, ER, but I thought you and Dan were the ones that had put the Old Testament in moth balls."
What ER said. I LOVE the OT. I'd love it if folk were familiar with its beautiful poetry, its exciting and sometimes horrifying stories and the speaking truth to power of the prophets. The sometimes wise, sometimes funny proverbs are great, as are many of the psalms.
I even love parts of the Holiness Code. Man! What a cool idea the Jubilee Laws were! And even, "an eye for an eye" was a great improvement over the violence of the day, where the norm was "a village for an eye."
Mom2, read what I've said. I've posted dozens of passages from the OT on my blog just in the last month or two.
I just don't accept every word in the OT as applying literally to you or me or of being a perfect representation of God's ways.
So, do you love the OT as much as I do? Maybe we've found something in common.
El as far as I know you have never watched Al Gore's movie. You've never read an article propounding global climate change. I don't think you've even read a [reputable] news story about climate science. The only information you seem to receive on this subject are those points that agree with you. Pardon me if I don't accept your conclusions when you've ignored more than half the debate.
Watch "An Inconvenient Truth" and Michael Moore's "SiCKO" and then we can have a discussion of those movies their stars and their subject matter. Until then you just embarrass yourself.
"...and like our own Christian prophet, Yeshua, sorely misunderstood."
Where has Yeshua been misunderstand?
"I and my father are one." ?
"He that hath seen me hath seen the Father" ?
" Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." ?
"I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. " ?
"Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." ?
"He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." ?
It's quite plain that Yeshua spoke plainly so that even the simplest and poorest could understand. He spoke in parables about the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven, but he spoke plainly about salvation, and who He was in relation to that great gift.
"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and my Father are one."
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."
"He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me. And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me. I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness. And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day."
That's pretty plain. No environmental kookiness. No talk of living beyond ones ecological means. Just straight talk about Salvation- what's expected and what consequence lies in rejection of Him.
Yeshua is not difficult to understand. For those who are new to the faith there is milk. For those who are deeper in there is meat. Both will sustain the believer throughout this life and beyond. But it's quite plain that NO ONE get's to heaven without Yeshua.
"Until then you just embarrass yourself."
Actually, I feel a bit embarrassed for you that you have fallen for the vilest sort of snake-oil salesmen out there. You speak as though you believe yourself to be more enlightened, more learned, but you're as guilty of onesidedness as you deem me to be. You gravitate toward shameful demogoguery, and those who gleefully use it as a bludgeon.
In terms of global warming. There is no evidence to support Gore's hypothesis that Man is killing the Earth. What you and everyone who believes that gobble-dee-gook junk-science "Conveniently" forgets is the world is thousands if not millions of years old [and no, I don't consider an 'earth-age' greater than six-thousand years inconsistent with the account in Genesis-- for reasons I'll not delve into here]... that the Earth has enjoyed periods of heating and cooling throughout its history. If anything affects global warming, its our own sun. Mars and Neptune both have been in the news this last year because of.... Global Warming!
The interesting thing about CO2 is that it's good for planetary flora which drink it in and give off oxygen. Are carbon emmissions a problem? Sure. Polution is never a good thing. But it's arrogant in the extreme, after only a hundred years or so, to insist man has polluted the planet to the point that a tipping-point toward global cataclysm is but a few short years away, if we fail to act now. It is ludicrous, and every bit as much a religion as Mormonism. It's all too embarrassing to think intelligent people can fall for such tripe when only a few decades ago the cataclysm du jour was Global COOLING !
As for "Sicko" Moore is advocating Socialism in Medicine. You think healthcare costs are high now, just wait till the governmental bureaucrats get their hands on it. It will bankrupt this country and kill untold thousands. Western medicine-- espacially in AMERICA --is a witchdoctor's paradise, a suffused with government corruption already!
Would somebody else please deal with EL's outburst this time? I mean, the sifting of the Bible, again, to back his old, tired, turn-or-burn, it's-all-black-and-white and easy-as-pie heaven-or-hell MILK? That's the MILK, brother.
Would someone else, this time, point out that most, if not all, of those words were put in Jesus's mouth by the Gospel writers, and, as such, are best seen as what others said about him, not what he said about himself?
Would somebody else, this time, point out that to willfully remain blind to the fact that Jesus's legacy is a way of faith in God and life among men and women, not a list of doctrinal statements that one must believe, is to miss the whole damn point?
Would somebody remind me that, as Mom2 says about me, everytime I think ol' EL is a pretty decent fella, he rips into somebody, or shows his mind to be so closed and his heart to be so cold, and his "faith" to be so NOT that it makes me think he really is another another course, one with signposts that say only "EL" -- and not on The Way of Jesus at all?
Oh, and this cracks me UP. I hope you were looking at your own reflection in the computer screen when you typed this, Bubba:
"You speak as though you believe yourself to be more enlightened, more learned, but you're as guilty of onesidedness as you deem me to be. You gravitate toward shameful demogoguery, and those who gleefully use it as a bludgeon."
Yes, EL, you do.
I think it's time for a break from the Fundamental Funhouse for awhile.
Oh, and this is just silly prattle:
"As for 'Sicko' Moore is advocating Socialism in Medicine. You think healthcare costs are high now, just wait till the governmental bureaucrats get their hands on it. It will bankrupt this country and kill untold thousands."
You wouldn't know socialism if you ... drove ... down a state-owned ... highway.
But it IS black and white. Far more so than gray, and that's for sure. You don't have any credible evidence to support your notion that the words Christ spoke in the Gospels were put in His mouth by the writer, rather than an accurate accounting of what He did say. You seem to overlook the fact that Christ imparted to His disciples a level of power to perform miracles. It would seem a simple thing to then recall His words to record them accurately or to pass such a recall ability to the writers. You'd rather insist on ambiguity and guessing, putting all of Scripture in question. If that's modern liberal Christianity, I don't see how it's much more than lip service to something new seekers would have trouble identifying. It's totally empty. Please be specific.
"He that is not with me is against me." Jesus in Matt 12:30
"For he that is not against us is on our part." Jesus in Mark 9:40
For a whole big page of these sorts of fun headscratchers, try here.
Many of these examples are trivial, but not all of them. For instance, how are we saved?:
MT 10:22, 24:13, MK 13:13 He that endures to the end will be saved.
MK 16:16 He that believes and is baptized will be saved.
JN 3:5 Only he that is born of water and Spirit will be saved.
AC 16:31 He that believes on the Lord Jesus will be saved.
AC 2:21 He that calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved.
RO 10:9 He who confesses with his mouth "Jesus is Lord" and believes in his heart that God raised him from the dead will be saved.
1JN 4:7 He who loves is born of God (and presumably will be saved.)
and, not mentioned, "For it is by grace that you are saved, through faith..."
And, the sheep and the goats story, wherein the sheep are saved (much to everyone's surprise) because they are the ones who have done to the least of these. Period.
Or Jesus saying, "woe to anyone who'd harm one of these little ones," vs OT stories of God telling the Israelis to commit genocide - even killing little children. Is it or is it not always wrong to kill children??!!
And on and on.
I love the Bible. It is God's Word. It is great for instruction and learning. But it can be a confusing and contradictory mess - especially if you were reading it from scratch, with no religious preconceptions or background.
Add to the confusion within the Bible our own lack of genius and you can get some real twisted ideas from the Bible.
Which is why ultimately we are to learn from God, not the Bible. And, of course, being human, we will get it wrong sometimes.
Or at least I haven't reached a level of omniscience where I get it right all the time, I assume that's true for the rest of y'all...
"Which is why ultimately we are to learn from God, not the Bible."
How does one learn OF God, let along FROM God, without the Bible?
This is perhaps the most ignorant statement you've made thus far.
I wish you were right about global warming, El. I wish it all was just a hoax. It isn't.
And it isn't Gore's hypothesis. He is drawing attention to the problem, but it is a hypothesis (with a great deal of supporting evidence) of physical and biological scientists.
Here's a good introduction, written by a climatologist and a biologist, both at Stanford: Climate Change: Overview and Implications for Wildlife
Brother Eric said:
"How does one learn OF God, let along FROM God, without the Bible?
This is perhaps the most ignorant statement you've made thus far."
Why thank you. That's no mean feat, I'm sure.
Still, do you not agree that God is written on each sunrise? That God's handiworks are not an eloquent testimony to the Creator?
Do you disagree with the psalmist?
The heavens are telling of the glory of God;
And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.
Day to day pours forth speech,
And night to night reveals knowledge.
~Psalm 19
Or Paul, who agrees with the psalmist that God's creation teaches us of God?
Ever since the creation of the world, God's invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made.
~Romans 1:20
Or Paul, who goes on to say that God's word is written on our very conscience?
They show that the demands of the law are written in their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even defend them...
~Romans 2:15
I am no doubt an ignorant man, Eric, being born of an ignorant tribe. I'm just trying to learn from God's Word the best I can. Pray for me, in your wisdom, that I may find some myself.
None of the verses you quote point to Jesus. Apart from Him there is no salvation.
I'm not the least bit surprised to discover that when I resort to quoting Jesus Himself (since you and ER have consistently insisted that Christians should rely upon Jesus and HIS teachings), that now you move the bar, insisting I must trust in what the Universe reveals to me about God.
You are some piece of work.
Peace, Mr. Ashley. I have no quarrel with you quoting Jesus. That's a good thing, within context. I was just pointing out originally that we are to learn from God, ultimately. That the Bible and God's Truth need to be revealed to us.
We can read the Bible and get all manner of bad messages, due to our own flawed humanity, or we can get good messages. I'm just saying that any righteousness, any revelation of God we find - whether in God's Word or in God's creation or written on our own psyche, must come from God. This is fully within traditional church teaching, right?
And then, when you asked how can we know of God without the Bible, I provided a few examples of how. No riling you up was intended.
Where did you quote Jesus, by the way?
Never mind. I found the Jesus quotes to which you referred.
To take just one example of Dan's and "reveal" for him,
"Or Jesus saying, "woe to anyone who'd harm one of these little ones," vs OT stories of God telling the Israelis to commit genocide - even killing little children. Is it or is it not always wrong to kill children??!!"
When God was sanctioning the destruction of cities while the tribes were on their way to the Promised Land, or other actions, such as Sodom, the Hebrews were acting on behalf of God's direct orders. In effect HE was destroying those towns. Obviously, as most would wonder, weren't there children in the towns, too? Most likely yes. But here again, it's GOD doing the killing by the use of his chosen for whatever reason stated for each episode. Jesus is talking to US, or for ER, THEM, meaning the Jews of His time. For them to take it upon themselves to harm a child is a far cry from GOD mandating such an action. The difference is clear, in fact, obvious. With a bit of review for the sake of context, I could do as much for nearly any example you could offer. Others with far greater background in the field than I, would do it much more easily. The only question is, will those such as you find it credible or continue to dwell in ambiguity?
Sooo, if God speaks to you and tells you to commit genocide and kill children, it's okay?
I'm just trying to get the facts right so I don't, you know, commit genocide in a bad way...
When did He ever ask that of anyone, and why would He ask it of me? Was he mandating genocide, or the destruction of a sinful and wicked people? If you wish to discount such OT episodes because you don't see them as "God-like", perhaps the truth is that you don't see them as "Dan-like". Are you saying that if God were to speak to you and request offing someone, you'd refuse? You would actually question God's Will? (What am I talking about...he already does.) You judge God's actions and decrees on human terms. That's where you go wrong.
"Are you saying that if God were to speak to you and request offing someone, you'd refuse? You would actually question God's Will?"
Great questions, worthy of consideration, Marshall.
1. I acknowledge that I am a frail human, entirely able of being incorrect.
2. I believe in some moral certainties (with the acknowledgement that I am entirely able of being wrong).
3. One of the black and whites I find to be true within the Bible is that we ought not kill children. Killing children is wrong. Don't do it. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
4. Therefore, if I were to "hear the voice of God" telling me to kill children, I would recognize my own frail human state and have to assume either
a. I was wrong that killing children is wrong, or
b. I am misinterpreting the voice of God.
I ask you, which of the two options do you think most likely? I come to Marshall and tell you, "Dude, I'm hearing God telling me to kill children and I'm certain that it's God's voice. But I thought it wrong to kill children! I mean, I acknowledge that there are some examples in the Bible where God supposedly tells people to do that, but it seems to be against the greater biblical witness and Truths. What do I do?!"
What is your advice to me?
No, I do not judge God's actions on human terms. Not at all. God is God and above human reason.
Rather, I judge my morals on what the Bible, my faith community and my God-given reason teach me and weigh any moral action based on these things and have come to the conclusion that killing children is wrong.
Are you going to advise me to go with the voice that I'm certain is God's or with what I was certain I had learned morally from God's Word?
As to When did God ever ask genocide and kid-killing, surely you know the biblical stories, the commands that are there at least a few times (probably more than I'd like to imagine)?
Deuteronomy 7, for instance:
When the Lord your God brings you into the land that you are about to enter and occupy, and he clears away many nations before you... when the Lord your God gives them over to you and you defeat them, then you must utterly destroy them. Make no covenant with them and show them no mercy. ...You shall devour all the peoples that the Lord your God is giving over to you, showing them no pity.
yuck. Doesn't sound like the God I worship.
That's because you don't worship the God of the Bible. You worship something made of your own hands.
...and your god commits genocide and kills children, I get it.
You're welcome to that god, I have not much use for it.
Here's some more of that god, if you truly want to claim it:
"Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."
god to Moses, Numbers 31
If you can't accept the GOD of the old testament, you can't accept the GOD of the new, for they are one and the same.
Truth is-- though you haven't the courage to admit it --you don't worship the GOD of Heaven, or His son. Instead, you (quoting Dan Trabue):
"judge [your] morals on what the Bible, [your] faith community and [your] God-given reason teach [you] and weigh any moral action based on these things"
Breaking it down...
1) The Bible-- This first is a lie because you can't cling to Jesus while denying the God of Moses... they are one and the same. Jesus said: If you've seen me, you've seen the father.
2) Your Faith-Community-- Is merely a crutch you've fallen back upon because the Bible and the God it describes therein are unpalatable for your refined tastes.
3) Your God-given reason-- Relying upon your ability to reason, rather than the source of that ability Himself, there's not love of God Almighty in this statement, ESPECIALLY, when taken with your next statement... that doesn't sound like the God I worship."
So you base every moral decision on a bible you don't believe in, the tenets dictated by your "community", and your own intellect.... Hmmm.
Diagnosis?
You worship yourself. Not God.
So, the god of the OT walks up to you and says, "I'll give you a good piece of Canaan if you'll just kill all these children for me," but then the God of the NT says, "NO! Woe to those who'd harm one hair on the head of one of these little ones!"
Which God/god will you obey?
I'll say it again: I LOVE the OT, there is such a rich history and so many wonderful stories there and God is represented there so well in so many ways.
And I love the NT, as well.
But I shan't be believing that Jesus literally wants us to lop our hands off nor shall I believe that God literally wants us to kill children sometime.
Surely you can agree with me on this?
As an aside, I managed to get through my comments without denigrating you, saying that you were worshiping yourself, suggesting that you weren't a Christian at all...none of that.
I, for one, think you are a Christian. You love the same God I love, worship the same Christ.
We disagree about God's nature sometimes, but I find no reason to assume that means you're "worshiping a god of your own creation - YOURSELF!" or anything like that.
It's just a disagreement. An important one, but a disagreement nonetheless. Can we disagree civilly, please? I'd have sent this in an email, but I couldn't find your email.
Peace, brother.
If you can't accept the GOD of the old testament, you can't accept the GOD of the new, for they are one and the same.>
Dan, that is a statement of truth. You should thank Eric for caring enough to tell you the truth. Prov. 16:25 There is a way which seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death. The character of God is not changed by our human perception of Him. He is the same yesterday, today and forever. I would hope that you desire to know Him better, not try to convince anyone to see Him in any way that is contrary to the Word.
But mom2, can't I say the exact same thing in reverse? If you can't accept the Jesus of the NT, then you can't accept the God of the Old?
Do you think that there is biblical support for the notion that sometimes God might tell us to kill children? Commit genocide? I'm saying that the Bible teaches that as a clear and absolute wrong. Surely we can agree upon this??
But you don't worship that god, so why all the fuss? Your god would never sanction the deaths of whole cities of women and children.
You can go back to sleep now.
Re, "Your god would never sanction the deaths of whole cities of women and children."
EL, I'll accept that as if you directed it to me.
You are correct. God, indeed, would never sanction the deaths of whole cities of women and childeen. Right.
If yours would, then you are right again, we worship different gods. You worship the Bible itself.
Listen: You pray for my ignorance, which I cop to. I'll pray that you be delivered of your hate. It POURS from your fingers. And fear. Both of which you, apparently, are blind to.
As I said,
Delate: "As I said,"
That's okay ER. As I understand it, you don't take much stock in the Old Testament anyway...
God DID sanction the destruction of whole cities including the women and children. Now, I don't presume to know the mind of God or his purpose in killing "innocents" as in Sodom and Gomorrah, as in Jericho or Ai. He had His reason. He is Holy. I therefore have no problem with it.
Because I express the truth, you call me "hate-filled" in no uncertain terms. Go ahead, I can take it. It's just another thing I'm going to have to get used to if I intend to speak the truth, and follow Jesus.
If I thought you were trying to follow jesus, I wouldn't be so appalled at you, EL. I see no love, no, grace, no hope and no ... Jesus in what you write!
And this is a moral copout: "He had His reason. He is Holy. I therefore have no problem with (genocide)."
Then your god is a murderer and you're cool with it. Sick. Unthinking. Maybe historically Jewish. But UnChristian.
Re, "I can take it." Don't martyr yourself. Use the brain God gave you.
I want to slightly revise, extend and clarify what I said about the Gospel writer putting words in Jesus's mouth.
Of course they did. Jesus's followers weren't taking notes. There were no tape recorders.
That does not mean, and I did not mean, that Jesus did not say approximately what is reported in the Gospels. It DOES mean, however, that the writers of the Gospels emphasized what seemed most important to them as they wrote.
And *that* means that where Jesus says He and the Father are one, and that no one comes to the Father but me, that is what the Gospel writer believed, which means that is what many of the early Christians believed. But not all, not those whose scriptures were drummed out of the church collective during the councils in the 400s.
I accept everything you quoted from Jesus from the Scriptures, EL, as authoritative positions of many, maybe even most, of the early church. Which means that I accept it as my heritage as a Christian. In case mark is lurking: I do not deny the deity of Jesus.
I do disagree with what "I and the Father are one" can mean when jesus is also reported to have said, "Why callest thou me good? There is none good but the Father in heaven." And I aso don't assume that because the Bibl;e says that Jesus is the only way, that that means that people need to even hear the Gospel to be saved! To "grow in grace," yes. To become full participants in the Body of Christ, yes. But to be saved by the skin of yer teeth? No.
Because, as Dan pointed out, the Creation itself cries out in testimony to God's Godness. And his Word is written on our very conscience. And all long and trvail to be reconciled with God -- and God has made provision! When was I saved? About 2,000 years ago, that's when.
Ah, the mystery continues. Why can't you allow for differences of opinion on what these things mean?
Peace. Again, peace. And I apologize for jumping ugly on you, and I am slightly embarrased that I let my words regarding the quotes from Jesus fromt he Bible get away from me without proper explanation. We still disagree, I'm sure, but a least I've tried to be clearer as to what I meant.
Now, come to my place and read about the Parable of the Lost Weinie Dog! :-)
"Why can't you allow for differences of opinion on what these things mean?"
Allow me to throw that back at you... And allow me also to make an observation. If you can't trust that the words of Jesus, the words in red, are His actual words, how can you rely on your salvation? What if the Apostles got that part wrong too?
And what about the work of the Holy Spirit, who, according to the Gospel of John, 14th chapter, 26th verse is the surety for the veracity of "Red Letter" Discipleship?
"But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you."
Those too are in red letters. There's a dichotomy here in your view of scripture. On the one hand they are authoritative and worthy of trust for salvation, but on the other, we can't be completely sure that the words the Apostles penned were the genuine words of the Savior. Your philosophy makes no sense... you're trying to carry sand in a sieve. For to believe what you believe, the promise of salvation is reduced to "Gee, I sure hope I'm really saved... I sure hope Jesus really paid for my sins on the cross"
Absolutely not.
Not all Christian traditions believe in sola scriptura; many also rely on church tradition; and most, actually, don't claim to have all the answers -- just enough, by God's grace.
There is no dichotomy to one who does not need the Bible to be literal! The GIST of the Gospel is all any of us have. And the GIST of it is this:
God saves us through Christ, who has reconciled us to God. How, is up for debate -- and has been since Jesus was crucified.
Adding anything else to the gist of ti -- blood atonement, baptism, the work of the Spirit, faith, works, whatEVER -- is to select some assertions in Scripture over others.
The devil is, indeed, in the details -- which are the source of Christian disunity!
So, I say to hell with the details, where they belong, from where they originated.
I think you have either mispoken or have accidentally said out loud what I fear you actually do.
"On the one hand they are authoritative and worthy of trust for salvation ..."
The exact words of the Bible are NOT worthy of trust for salvation. If you trust the Bible for your salvation, then you are not trusting God through Christ for salvation, are you? You're trusting the words themselves, the idea that they have been perfectly preserved, and your own understanding!
I do not. I do not, despite what you and others have asserted, rely on my own dang understanding. I surrender my understanding. I am wrong about lots of things.
I'm positive of one thing: God is the author of my salvation.
Re, "Why can't you allow for differences of opinion on what these things mean?"
Thrown back at me?
I am not the one who insists that YOU "believe" the way I do. YOU are the one, and others here, who insist that I line up behind you on YOUR ideas, or I'm unsaved, or in need of chastisement, or deluded. I merely think you are wrong -- NOT THAT YOU ARE OUT OF GOD'S WILL OR GOD'S GRACE.
BTW, I mean I think you are wrong to insist that others adhere to the sasme set of beliefs you hold. Not that I think you are wrong in all your beliefs. I don't think it matters a whit, most of what you think is so all-fired important. Same for the few details I worry about. THAT's the wood, hay and stubble that'll burn off first: BS doctrinal disagreements.
Post a Comment
<< Home