A
Anna_Scott
Guest
Could you elaborate a little?
- Status
B
Byzantine_Wolf
Guest
That’s just what we need, an early Church Father who talks about throwing fecal matter at the devil.
Sounds like a Harry Turtledove novel in the making.BTW, just out of curiosity, why do you often put “##” before each post of yours?
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
Part I
Interestingly enough, there is no reference of anyone outside the house of Israel being included in, let alone any one being “grafted in,” in the original passage. This has to either be assumed or read into the passage. We know for certain God did not hide salvation among the Jews, for He granted salvation to those outside of Israel. What then could this mean?
First, this is a rather ironic statement. I could say the same regarding your interpretation of the sticks of Ephraim and Judah as representing the Cross of Christ. This idea, also, has to be “assumed” or “read into the passage.”
I didn’t really explain the “grafting in” issue. I was referring to Romans, Chapter 11: 17But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root[c] of the olive tree, 18do not be arrogant toward the branches.
[emphasis mine]Byzantine_Wolf;5508942 said:As I stated before (quoting Justin Martyr as an example of early belief in this), Church Tradition has held for 2000 years (both between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches) that the new Israel is the Church, made up of both Jews and Gentiles. You may have (I think accidentally) alluded to this near the end of your post:
This was not an accident. I did mean the whole house of Israel to include the Gentiles.
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
Part 2
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
I know I still have other Posts to answer. I will do as much as I can tomorrow.
Anna
Anna
B
Byzantine_Wolf
Guest
(Part 1/2)
Or is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also, since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. [Romans 3:29-30]
What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? As He says also in Hosea: “I will call them My people, who were not My people, and her beloved, who was not beloved.” [Romans 9:22-25]
…but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. [1 Corinthians 1:24-25]
And again:
For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit. [1 Corinthians 12:13]
If so, please tell me you don’t follow Dough Pagitt.
The “universal salvation” I think you are referring to is his heretical belief in apocatastasis, which taught that hell was more of a hospital than a prison, and that eventually everyone would return to heaven (a version of which is still believed in Islam and, in some respects, the teaching of Purgatory). It was condemned at the Fifth Ecumenical Council.
Origen aside, however, there is nothing else to believe in apocatastasis or any other version of it in patristics.
I would not say so, because we are not really “reading into” what the passage is saying, but taking what it says and realizing what it will eventually come out to. Even the apostles did this, where they only realized what the words of Christ and what the Jewish scriptures really taught after all the events they saw had transpired.
That’s my point - the new Israel includes the Gentiles
Why not?
Or is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also, since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. [Romans 3:29-30]
What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? As He says also in Hosea: “I will call them My people, who were not My people, and her beloved, who was not beloved.” [Romans 9:22-25]
…but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. [1 Corinthians 1:24-25]
And again:
For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit. [1 Corinthians 12:13]
Please don’t tell me you’re part of the Emergent/Emerging Church movement.
If so, please tell me you don’t follow Dough Pagitt.That passage is said during the reign of King David, at the height of the Jewish kingdom’s power. They are praying for defense against enemy nations.
Actually Origen isn’t really considered a Church Father, at least not on the same level as Saint John Chrysostom, Saint John Damascene, Saint Basil the Great, and others. Even though some of his writings are respected by the Church, other writings are considered very heretical.
The “universal salvation” I think you are referring to is his heretical belief in apocatastasis, which taught that hell was more of a hospital than a prison, and that eventually everyone would return to heaven (a version of which is still believed in Islam and, in some respects, the teaching of Purgatory). It was condemned at the Fifth Ecumenical Council.
Origen aside, however, there is nothing else to believe in apocatastasis or any other version of it in patristics.
B
Byzantine_Wolf
Guest
(Part 2/2)
I also believe, on a deeper level, the statement of our Lord is a great act of Christ to show what the cross means: the cross is redemption. Those who believe in Christ’s teachings, death, and resurrection will have forgiveness of sins and life everlasting. This goes beyond the ethnic Jews and to the Gentiles as well.
When talking about Orthodoxy to Protestants, I often tell them that, even if they consider Orthodoxy a bunch of hooey and bunk, they have to admit that some sort of apostolic succession took place in the early Church, and that in one form or another the teachings were passed down to the Church Fathers. If we believe the Church went astray early on (as so many Protestants unfortunately do) then we give credence to the beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Muslims, and many other who teach some form of great apostasy.
Of course, I believe any kind of “well everyone believes something different and I guess no one’s right” belief is dangerously close to post-modernism, and such beliefs eventually lead to universalism. Not that you are necessarily supporting these ideas or heading that way, but if we entering this territory, it will be dangerous waters.
We also have the tradition passed down by the apostles, and, as I showed before with Justin Martyr as an example, the early Church considered the Church to be the new Israel, and even Christ told the Sanhedrin that their power over God’s earthly domain would be taken and given to a group who would bear fruit.
I believe God answered His prayers, but I think we also need to realize that Judas is most likely not in Paradise because, on top of betraying our Lord, he committed suicide. We also have to realize that there were some Jews who disobeyed our Lord before the crucifixion and perhaps did not follow Him into Paradise after the gates of hell were busted down. We must also realize that there were “bad Jews” after the crucifixion where Christ made those words. So again, if we are going to say literally all of Israel will be saved, does that mean even blaspheming or unrighteous Jews?
I also believe, on a deeper level, the statement of our Lord is a great act of Christ to show what the cross means: the cross is redemption. Those who believe in Christ’s teachings, death, and resurrection will have forgiveness of sins and life everlasting. This goes beyond the ethnic Jews and to the Gentiles as well.
People do do that, hence why tradition is important. The Church Fathers are very consistent on the basics of understanding scripture and what scripture entails, and what we find written by Saint Ignatius and others in the 1st-2nd century AD is being written by Saint John Damascene some 600 years or so later. These men dealt with heretics and argued against their beliefs, and these heretics are still around but are now under different names. Certainly these men individually are not infallible, but collectively they give us guidance in our lives, both with scripture and prayer. What helps us against the Jehovah’s Witnesses is the testimony of the Church Fathers against the Arians. What helps us against the Unitarians is the testimony of the Church Fathers against the Modalists. What helps us against the Mormons is the testimony of the Church Fathers against the Gnostics, pagans and Manichaeans. The list goes on.
When talking about Orthodoxy to Protestants, I often tell them that, even if they consider Orthodoxy a bunch of hooey and bunk, they have to admit that some sort of apostolic succession took place in the early Church, and that in one form or another the teachings were passed down to the Church Fathers. If we believe the Church went astray early on (as so many Protestants unfortunately do) then we give credence to the beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Muslims, and many other who teach some form of great apostasy.
Not at all. As I stated earlier, even the apostles did this after Christ’s death and Resurrection, and after the filling of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.
That depends on who you speak to. Roman Catholics and Orthodox will tell you they have their scripture, whereas Protestants will tell you they have theirs. Of course, traditional belief is that the deuter-canonical books, while perhaps not canon, are still edifying and necessary to be studied (Saint Athanasius wrote on this). I would argue some Protestants think this too. It is only some fundamentalist Evangelicals who go the extreme route and declare the deuter-canonical books are heretical and demonic.
Of course, I believe any kind of “well everyone believes something different and I guess no one’s right” belief is dangerously close to post-modernism, and such beliefs eventually lead to universalism. Not that you are necessarily supporting these ideas or heading that way, but if we entering this territory, it will be dangerous waters.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Superb post, Wolf…
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
**Part 1 of 2-- Answers to Byzantine_Wolf
That’s my point - the new Israel includes the Gentiles
Or is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also, since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. [Romans 3:29-30]
What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? As He says also in Hosea: “I will call them My people, who were not My people, and her beloved, who was not beloved.” [Romans 9:22-25]
…but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. [1 Corinthians 1:24-25]
And again:
For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit. [1 Corinthians 12:13]
Please don’t tell me you’re part of the Emergent/Emerging Church movement. If so, please tell me you don’t follow Dough Pagitt.
That passage is said during the reign of King David, at the height of the Jewish kingdom’s power. They are praying for defense against enemy nations.
Actually Origen isn’t really considered a Church Father, at least not on the same level as Saint John Chrysostom, Saint John Damascene, Saint Basil the Great, and others. Even though some of his writings are respected by the Church, other writings are considered very heretical.
The “universal salvation” I think you are referring to is his heretical belief in apocatastasis, which taught that hell was more of a hospital than a prison, and that eventually everyone would return to heaven (a version of which is still believed in Islam and, in some respects, the teaching of Purgatory). It was condemned at the Fifth Ecumenical Council.
Origen aside, however, there is nothing else to believe in apocatastasis or any other version of it in patristics.
Byzantine_Wolf,
I think I am going to rename you the “Big Bad Wolf.” lol
First I want to tell you that I am not part of the “Emergent/Emerging Church movement or a follower of Dough Pagitt.” I do not know who Dough Pargitt is. I am just a Christian reading and studying God’s Word and praying for discernment. No religious movement, denomination, or religious leader is responsible for my questions.
As for Origen, I am not saying that I agree with his beliefs. I was only making the point that the question of salvation for those who contributed to the crucifixion of Christ is not a new issue, and remains a complicated question, with a diversity of beliefs on the subject.
I am aware of the Scriptures re God saying He will call them My people, who were not My people. I am not in any way arguing against this. Nor am I arguing against the belief that God is both the God of the Jews and the God of the Gentiles.
I am not arguing against, “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit. [1 Corinthians 12:13]”
I think when we look at Romans Chapter 11 and consider it in light of OT writings, there may be more going on in God’s plan for salvation than what conventional teachings include.
Continued-Next Post**
I would not say so, because we are not really “reading into” what the passage is saying, but taking what it says and realizing what it will eventually come out to. Even the apostles did this, where they only realized what the words of Christ and what the Jewish scriptures really taught after all the events they saw had transpired.
That’s my point - the new Israel includes the Gentiles
Or is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also, since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. [Romans 3:29-30]
What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? As He says also in Hosea: “I will call them My people, who were not My people, and her beloved, who was not beloved.” [Romans 9:22-25]
…but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. [1 Corinthians 1:24-25]
And again:
For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit. [1 Corinthians 12:13]
Please don’t tell me you’re part of the Emergent/Emerging Church movement.
If so, please tell me you don’t follow Dough Pagitt.That passage is said during the reign of King David, at the height of the Jewish kingdom’s power. They are praying for defense against enemy nations.
Actually Origen isn’t really considered a Church Father, at least not on the same level as Saint John Chrysostom, Saint John Damascene, Saint Basil the Great, and others. Even though some of his writings are respected by the Church, other writings are considered very heretical.
The “universal salvation” I think you are referring to is his heretical belief in apocatastasis, which taught that hell was more of a hospital than a prison, and that eventually everyone would return to heaven (a version of which is still believed in Islam and, in some respects, the teaching of Purgatory). It was condemned at the Fifth Ecumenical Council.
Origen aside, however, there is nothing else to believe in apocatastasis or any other version of it in patristics.
Byzantine_Wolf,
I think I am going to rename you the “Big Bad Wolf.”
lolFirst I want to tell you that I am not part of the “Emergent/Emerging Church movement or a follower of Dough Pagitt.” I do not know who Dough Pargitt is. I am just a Christian reading and studying God’s Word and praying for discernment. No religious movement, denomination, or religious leader is responsible for my questions.
As for Origen, I am not saying that I agree with his beliefs. I was only making the point that the question of salvation for those who contributed to the crucifixion of Christ is not a new issue, and remains a complicated question, with a diversity of beliefs on the subject.
I am aware of the Scriptures re God saying He will call them My people, who were not My people. I am not in any way arguing against this. Nor am I arguing against the belief that God is both the God of the Jews and the God of the Gentiles.
I am not arguing against, “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit. [1 Corinthians 12:13]”
I think when we look at Romans Chapter 11 and consider it in light of OT writings, there may be more going on in God’s plan for salvation than what conventional teachings include.
Continued-Next Post**
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
**Part 2 of 2-- Answers to Byzantine_Wolf
Romans, Chapter 11 sums up what I am trying to say about the Salvation of the Jewish people.
**
Romans Chapter 11 (ESV):
The Jews who had not accepted Christ at that point in time were still referred to as “God’s people,” and there was a “remnant, chosen by grace.”
and ears that would not hear,
down to this very day."
9And David says,
a stumbling block and a retribution for them;
10let their eyes be darkened so that they cannot see,
and bend their backs forever."
God “hardened” Israel: He actually interfered with their salvation by giving them a “spirit of stupor, eyes that would not see and ears that would not hear.”
“For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead?” Is this a reference to Ezekiel Chapter 37, and salvation after resurrection?
We did not replace “Israel” and become a “new Israel”; we were “grafted in.”
Granted, here “belief” is an issue, but we have to keep reading to get the whole picture.
he will banish ungodliness from Jacob";
27"and this will be my covenant with them
when I take away their sins."
**A “mystery” is revealed: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in." **Then we read that “all Israel will be saved.” “The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob”; 27"and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins."
Notice how the word “Covenant” is used.
30For just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, 31so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy. 32For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.
The people of Israel are “enemies for our sake”; and they are “beloved for the sake of their forefathers.”
We are told in this passage that the “gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.” We were at one time disobedient to God, but now we have received mercy, because of their disobedience. They too have been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to us they also may receive mercy. God consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.
**33Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!
**
34"For who has known the mind of the Lord,
or who has been his counselor?"
35"Or who has given a gift to him
that he might be repaid?"
** 36 For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.**
I am not claiming to have all the answers. I have more questions than answers. When I finally read the Bible cover to cover; I was shocked by what it did not say, and I was equally shocked by what it did say. I found many contradictions to what I had been taught in Christian Churches for most of my 54 years on this earth.
May God lead us all to His Truth,
Anna
Romans, Chapter 11 sums up what I am trying to say about the Salvation of the Jewish people.
**
Romans Chapter 11 (ESV):
Do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he appeals to God against Israel? 3 “Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have demolished your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life.” 4But what is God’s reply to him? “I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” 5So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. 6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.
The Jews who had not accepted Christ at that point in time were still referred to as “God’s people,” and there was a “remnant, chosen by grace.”
Code:
"God gave them a spirit of stupor,
eyes that would not seedown to this very day."
9And David says,
Code:
"Let their table become a snare and a trap,10let their eyes be darkened so that they cannot see,
and bend their backs forever."
God “hardened” Israel: He actually interfered with their salvation by giving them a “spirit of stupor, eyes that would not see and ears that would not hear.”
Through the “trespasses of Israel,” salvation came to the Gentiles. Is “full inclusion” coming?
16 If the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, so is the whole lump, and if the root is holy, so are the branches.
“For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead?” Is this a reference to Ezekiel Chapter 37, and salvation after resurrection?
If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. 19Then you will say,** “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.”** 20That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear. 21For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you.
We did not replace “Israel” and become a “new Israel”; we were “grafted in.”
24For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree.
Granted, here “belief” is an issue, but we have to keep reading to get the whole picture.
, brothers:** a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written,**
Code:
"The Deliverer will come from Zion,27"and this will be my covenant with them
when I take away their sins."
**A “mystery” is revealed: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in." **Then we read that “all Israel will be saved.” “The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob”; 27"and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins."
Notice how the word “Covenant” is used.
. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. 29For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.
30For just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, 31so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy. 32For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.
The people of Israel are “enemies for our sake”; and they are “beloved for the sake of their forefathers.”
We are told in this passage that the “gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.” We were at one time disobedient to God, but now we have received mercy, because of their disobedience. They too have been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to us they also may receive mercy. God consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.
**33Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!
**
34"For who has known the mind of the Lord,
or who has been his counselor?"
35"Or who has given a gift to him
that he might be repaid?"
** 36 For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.**
I am not claiming to have all the answers. I have more questions than answers. When I finally read the Bible cover to cover; I was shocked by what it did not say, and I was equally shocked by what it did say. I found many contradictions to what I had been taught in Christian Churches for most of my 54 years on this earth.
May God lead us all to His Truth,
Anna
B
Byzantine_Wolf
Guest
Careful doing that completely alone…that’s what Joseph Smith did.
I actually don’t think it’s all that complicated. My point was will even bad Jews be saved if “all” of Israel will be saved, and somehow we diverted to the Jews at the crucifixion. We shouldn’t get distracted. If all Israel will be saved, does that include those Jews who were unrighteous? If so, what was the point of Christ’s death?
But now, in response to your quotation of Romans 11…
First, the text actually does not say that those Jews who reject Christ are still God’s people. Rather, those who accepted Christ are called God’s people, for Paul, after asking if God had abandoned the Israelites, points out that he himself is an Israelite - what was Paul? He was a Christian. An ethnic Jew, yes, but a Christian. Again, a distinction must be made between who are ethnic Jews and who are religious Jews. The “remnant” which are “chosen by grace” refers to the story of Elijah and those Jews who had not bowed down to foreign idols - again, Paul is referring to those Jews who believed Christ was Messiah and Lord. As there were a small number of faithful in the times of Elijah, so are a small number of Jews faithful in the times of the Apostolic Church.
Second, Paul comparing the rejection of Jews to the acceptance of Gentiles refers first to the willing acceptance of Gentiles into the Church (which shocked many Judaizers and hardliner Jews) and second to the ultimate goal of winning more Jews to Christ. Because the Jews were rejecting Christ - or as Saint John the Theologian writes, “He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him” (John 1:11) - God continued His plan of salvation to the Gentiles, making disciples of all nations (Matt 28:19). From here Paul gathers that their rejection presents the “reconciliation of the world.” The Jews will, of course, come to their senses and by jealousy come to Christ, and from this they will receive “life from the dead” by their “acceptance,” just as anyone who accepts Christ will receive eternal life. There is no possible way this could be a reference to the passage in Ezekiel.
Third, the “grafted in” passage does not contradict what I have argued before. Gentiles were brought in, yes, but they became part of that “olive tree,” as Paul illustrates - they were not like some deformed extremity but grew as if they were a normal branch of the tree. This is the new Israel, for the old Israel was bound by the Law and made up solely of ethnic Jews (remember Gentile converts had to stay outside the inner parts of the Temple). The New Israel is founded by the Grace of God and is a place where there is neither Jew nor Gentile (Gal 3:28).
Fourth, the partial hardening of the Jews has come to bring the Gentiles to the Church under the new shape of Israel and in such manner all in the true house of Israel will be saved. The reference to the covenant and remission of sins is to the new covenant under Christ, which was paid for on the cross, and not the old covenants which are now obsolete and disappearing (Heb 8:13). This covenant is fulfilled - as Paul says many times in his epistles, including Romans - through faith in Christ.
Fifth, the passages regarding disobedience are nothing really new, and present to us a pattern within salvation and obedience to the Divine One: the Gentiles were disobedient when the Jews were obedient, but now they are obedient when the Jews are disobedient. What Paul is doing is reiterating what he said earlier, which is that, through jealousy and gradual edification, the Jews will return to God, and will do so through their belief. In this manner, God presents salvation to all - but it is not the universalism that many believe in nowadays. God wills that all men should be saved, but He allows us our chance to grow in our faith, for, as Fulton Sheen once said, He did not seek after biological entities but developed souls.
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
Mr. Wolf,Careful doing that completely alone…that’s what Joseph Smith did.
Please don’t compare me to Joseph Smith. Someone might not realize you are joking. You are joking, aren’t you?
B
Byzantine_Wolf
Guest
I wasn’t comparing you at all to Joseph Smith. I’m just saying people who go it alone tend to make little popes of themselves - and no, I’m not saying you’re going to do that either. My comment was just a warning.
Take a look at KingJamesVideoMan on YouTube, then go to his website, and you’ll see what I mean about the dangers of going completely alone. The man’s invented his own doctrines from following the extreme form of sola scriptura (known as “solo scriptura”) and basically invented his own church, where the only right Christian in the world is him.
Since this thread is on a Reformer, I think it’s worth noting that many Roman Catholics/Orthodox and quite a few Protestants do not give the doctrine of sola scriptura a fair study. Even though the name means “scripture alone,” Martin Luther & co. did not mean you have a copy of the Bible and that’s it. Luther, Calvin and others could read Hebrew and Greek, and studied it in depth. Likewise, Calvin was high up on his Church Fathers (much more than Luther), as were some other Reformers. They did not take it to the extreme so many in Protestantism do today.
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
Mr. Wolf:
I do understand the point that you are making; and I do realize that I am at risk. I don’t really believe we are meant to “go it alone.” That’s just where I am right now, for a long list of reasons. I probably took up most of your Inbox explaining a few of them.
I just have to find my place within Christianity. And to that purpose, I would ask for prayers from all those who feel led to do so.
Still Prayerful,
Anna
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
Part 1 of 2: Answers to Contarini’s Post #156
The unfortunate reality is that things did not play out well in history, regardless of how one labels Luther’s writing. Even my reaction to Luther’s writing is a testament to that. I know that he advocated much needed reform. I’m not denying his contributions.
I wish he were alive today to defend himself in such a discussion as this.
In Post #149, I did say, “Luther would have no way of knowing that the likes of Hitler would use his writing as he did. That is both unfortunate and tragic for Luther and the way he is viewed in history.”
I’m not saying that historical truth is inconsequential. And–I agree that asserting superiority on the basis of birth is troubling no matter who makes the claim.
The unfortunate reality is that things did not play out well in history, regardless of how one labels Luther’s writing. Even my reaction to Luther’s writing is a testament to that. I know that he advocated much needed reform. I’m not denying his contributions.
I am not condemning Luther, the person. I agree with the quote, “He argues that the only moral judgment we can make about historical figures is that they were sinners like us.”
I wish he were alive today to defend himself in such a discussion as this.
In Post #149, I did say, “Luther would have no way of knowing that the likes of Hitler would use his writing as he did. That is both unfortunate and tragic for Luther and the way he is viewed in history.”
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
Part 2 of 2: Answers to Contarini’s Post #156
I did not see Gibson’s movie. I had Christian friends who were actually upset with me for refusing to see it. My son took his girlfriend. When they came back from the theater, she (girlfriend) was so disturbed by the violence, she could barely talk about the movie. My son strongly suggested that I not go. I took his advice.
Interesting points. I have Jewish friends, and we have had many long discussions. I have realized that sometimes we, as Christians, make uninformed assumptions about Jewish attitudes and beliefs (myself included.) We did discuss Mel Gibson’s movie, and they told me they were very concerned that this movie would unleash a new wave of anti-Semitism. To this I responded, “It was not the Jewish people who put Christ on the cross; it was the sin of humanity.” This Jewish couple, who are in there 80’s, said they had never heard this before. In all their encounters with Christians, and there have been many, no one ever spoke of the crucifixion of Christ in terms of the sins of humanity and our need for redemption.
I did not see Gibson’s movie. I had Christian friends who were actually upset with me for refusing to see it. My son took his girlfriend. When they came back from the theater, she (girlfriend) was so disturbed by the violence, she could barely talk about the movie. My son strongly suggested that I not go. I took his advice.
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
**Part 1 of 2: Response to Contarini’s Post #157
**
I see this is a tough issue, and one that has caused more than a few sleepless nights for me. Holding that Scripture was a product of its time, crashes with the idea of the “infallible word of God.” I realize we do not have the autographs.
The assumption that Scripture is a product of its time leads to a controversial question:
Is Scripture the infallible Word of God; or is Scripture a human account of man’s encounters with God, and man’s interpretation and beliefs as a result of those encounters?
I’m very interested in your view of Scripture?
Didn’t the Christians, throughout the centuries, go directly to the Scriptures; and then produce their exegesis and homilies, etc.? I realize that they studied more than Scripture. Philosophy was certainly in the mix, and the work of other Theologians, and other influences. You would have a greater knowledge of the history.
You said, “We must allow Scripture to challenge tradition as well.” If we do not “go directly to Scripture,” how can we use Scripture to challenge tradition?
I don’t understand what you are trying to say, especially in light of your efforts to provide a balanced view of Martin Luther.
Didn’t Luther teach that the Bible is the only source of divinely revealed knowledge? Didn’t he teach that God alone could give forgiveness of sin, and redemption is a gift of God’s grace attained through faith in Christ?
Luther’s German Bible put Scripture in the hands of the people. Wasn’t this, at least to some extent, to allow people to “go directly to Scripture?”
As you know very well, people were martyred to put Scripture in the hands of the people.
Wycliffe’s bones were ordered to be dug-up and crushed; because he dared to produce English manuscript copies–which allowed people to “go directly to Scripture.”
Wycliffe’s follower, John Hus, was burned at the stake. I read Wycliffe’s English manuscript Bibles were used as kindling for the fire that martyred him. Hus gave his life so that people could “go directly to Scripture” and read it in their own language.
Tyndale was strangled and burned at the stake, after a long incarceration; because he dared to produce a printed edition of Scriptures in the English language.
Please help me to understand what you are trying to say here. Maybe I am missing your point entirely.
Continued-Part 2-Next Post
**
I do agree with your statement: “We can’t read the hearts even of living people–dead ones are harder.” Can you give me some Biblical references regarding degrees of guilt? This would help me to understand what you are saying.
I don’t remember saying that I don’t believe “Scripture was a product of its times.” Refresh my memory, if I did.
I see this is a tough issue, and one that has caused more than a few sleepless nights for me. Holding that Scripture was a product of its time, crashes with the idea of the “infallible word of God.” I realize we do not have the autographs.
The assumption that Scripture is a product of its time leads to a controversial question:
Is Scripture the infallible Word of God; or is Scripture a human account of man’s encounters with God, and man’s interpretation and beliefs as a result of those encounters?
I’m very interested in your view of Scripture?
I’m puzzled by your words here. You are saying, "we can’t go directly to Scripture.” You are also saying we are to “hold ourselves accountable to the ways Christians have read Scripture throughout the centuries”?
Didn’t the Christians, throughout the centuries, go directly to the Scriptures; and then produce their exegesis and homilies, etc.? I realize that they studied more than Scripture. Philosophy was certainly in the mix, and the work of other Theologians, and other influences. You would have a greater knowledge of the history.
You said, “We must allow Scripture to challenge tradition as well.” If we do not “go directly to Scripture,” how can we use Scripture to challenge tradition?
I don’t understand what you are trying to say, especially in light of your efforts to provide a balanced view of Martin Luther.
Didn’t Luther teach that the Bible is the only source of divinely revealed knowledge? Didn’t he teach that God alone could give forgiveness of sin, and redemption is a gift of God’s grace attained through faith in Christ?
Luther’s German Bible put Scripture in the hands of the people. Wasn’t this, at least to some extent, to allow people to “go directly to Scripture?”
As you know very well, people were martyred to put Scripture in the hands of the people.
Wycliffe’s bones were ordered to be dug-up and crushed; because he dared to produce English manuscript copies–which allowed people to “go directly to Scripture.”
Wycliffe’s follower, John Hus, was burned at the stake. I read Wycliffe’s English manuscript Bibles were used as kindling for the fire that martyred him. Hus gave his life so that people could “go directly to Scripture” and read it in their own language.
Tyndale was strangled and burned at the stake, after a long incarceration; because he dared to produce a printed edition of Scriptures in the English language.
Please help me to understand what you are trying to say here. Maybe I am missing your point entirely.
I never said it was fair.
Continued-Part 2-Next Post
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
Continued- Part 2 of 2: Response to Contarini’s Post #157
Anna_Scott:
Edwin, I’m not sure I understand what you are trying to say here. What do you mean by “If you burn someone at the stake for denying the Trinity, can you really be such a terrible heretic yourself?”
In our discussions re Luther’s “On the Jews and Their Lies,” you have argued that Luther was, at least to some extent, a product of his time. Yet, Luther’s 95 Theses of Contention to the Wittenberg Church, does little to convince me he was a product of his time in terms of conventional views. He challenged the Pope/Catholic Church in a way that put his life at risk. It is really quite amazing that he escaped martyrdom.
Regarding the Jews, Luther should have gone “directly to Scripture.” Perhaps it would have defused his hatred.
Mark 12:28-34 (ESV): 28 And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, “Which commandment is the most important of all?”
29 Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30 And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ 31 The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”
32 And the scribe said to him, “You are right, Teacher. You have truly said that he is one, and there is no other besides him. 33 And to love him with all the heart and with all the understanding and with all the strength, and to love one’s neighbor as oneself, is much more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.”
34 And when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” And after that no one dared to ask him any more questions.
**Matthew 5:42-44 (ESV): **42 Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you. Love Your Enemies 43 "You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
Luke 6:27-28 (ESV): 27 "But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you.
Luke 6:34-36 (ESV): 34 And if you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to get back the same amount. 35 But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil. 36 Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful.
Prayerfully Considering. . . .
Anna
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
Re: Ezekiel Chapter 37
Still, it seems like you can make the Bible mean just about anything, using allegory. I think I said something similar to ByzantineWolf.
I realize that Jesus taught in parables, and that he kept mysteries hidden from the crowds; and privately revealed the meaning to the disciples. Nearly every time Jesus performed a miracle; he told the recipient not to tell anyone. Jesus kept His identity secret, through much of his ministry. I realize he had to do this in order to complete his ministry.
The words of the 4th Chapter of Mark have always been disturbing to me. Jesus taught a large crowd using a parable. At the end of the parable, in Verse 9, he said, ". . . . "He who has ears to hear, let him hear."
Then we find, what appears to be, an intentional prevention of salvation: Mark 4:10-12 (ESV): 10 And when he was alone, those around him with the twelve asked him about the parables. 11And he said to them, "**To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables,
12 so that "they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand, lest they should turn and be forgiven**.
I realize this is echoing an O.T. prophecy.
My point is that not everyone had a “Damascus Road” experience like Paul.
Can you see that this might not appear to be “an equal opportunity” ministry? Yet, those who did not accept Christ were apparently condemned; or so I am told. Do you think those blinded from the truth will have another chance, or is our lifetime on earth our only chance for salvation?
Romans, Chapter 11, speaks of a “partial hardening upon Israel”: 25 Lest you be wise in your own sight, I want you to understand this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written. . . . .
Then add in the “predestination issue”:
Ephesians 1:3-12 (ESV): 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, 4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him.
In love 5 he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.
7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, 8which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight 9 making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ 10as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.
11In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, 12so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory.
I realize that my words may appear dangerously close to the “potter and clay analogy” in Isaiah 29:15-17. Please know that my intent is not to question God or; heaven forbid, judge his actions. I am just asking honest questions.
**So, Gottle of Geer:
Always Questioning. . . .
Anna
There is so much allegory here. Who determines what Scripture is literal and what is allegory? I am sure your answer will involve Apostolic Succession and Oral Transmission of the Mysteries down through the centuries.## Good
Compare that chapter with this from Matt.27:
•52 and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised;
•53 and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many.
IMO, the passage in Matt 27 is a dramatised commentary on Ezek 37.12-13 f.: it is something like the interpretation of an apocalyptic text, in the form of history - several considerations suggest this:
•Matt does something similar in chapter 2, by giving us a dramatisation of Psalm 60 & Psalm 72 when he shows the Magi adoring Jesus as King: which makes a similar treatment of a prophetic text here, at the end of the gospel, not unlikely: structurally fitting, in fact
This chapter of Ezekiel includes the favourite Matthean motif of Kingship, in v. 25; & in 26, a new covenant (compare “This is the new covenant in My Blood” in Matt. 26.26) - Ezekiel’s “covenant of peace”
•The sticks in Ezek 37.15-20 would be a very natural hint at the Cross with its superscription.
•The Crucifixion-Resurrection & the Gift of the Spirit seems also to be a fulfilment of Ezek 37.12-14
•Verses 9-10, 14: Jesus is the “son of man” (like Ezekiel) Who imparts the Breath-Ruach-Pneuma of God to the dead (note the Pauline echoes…); in contrast perhaps to Gen. 2.7, where the man receives the breath of life from God
•v. 22 is fulfilled in Christ the King
•verse 27 is fulfilled in Christ, in the Church, & in the Eucharist
Still, it seems like you can make the Bible mean just about anything, using allegory. I think I said something similar to ByzantineWolf.
I realize that Jesus taught in parables, and that he kept mysteries hidden from the crowds; and privately revealed the meaning to the disciples. Nearly every time Jesus performed a miracle; he told the recipient not to tell anyone. Jesus kept His identity secret, through much of his ministry. I realize he had to do this in order to complete his ministry.
The words of the 4th Chapter of Mark have always been disturbing to me. Jesus taught a large crowd using a parable. At the end of the parable, in Verse 9, he said, ". . . . "He who has ears to hear, let him hear."
Then we find, what appears to be, an intentional prevention of salvation: Mark 4:10-12 (ESV): 10 And when he was alone, those around him with the twelve asked him about the parables. 11And he said to them, "**To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables,
12 so that "they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand, lest they should turn and be forgiven**.
I realize this is echoing an O.T. prophecy.
My point is that not everyone had a “Damascus Road” experience like Paul.
Can you see that this might not appear to be “an equal opportunity” ministry? Yet, those who did not accept Christ were apparently condemned; or so I am told. Do you think those blinded from the truth will have another chance, or is our lifetime on earth our only chance for salvation?
Romans, Chapter 11, speaks of a “partial hardening upon Israel”: 25 Lest you be wise in your own sight, I want you to understand this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written. . . . .
Then add in the “predestination issue”:
Ephesians 1:3-12 (ESV): 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, 4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him.
In love 5 he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.
7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, 8which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight 9 making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ 10as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.
11In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, 12so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory.
I realize that my words may appear dangerously close to the “potter and clay analogy” in Isaiah 29:15-17. Please know that my intent is not to question God or; heaven forbid, judge his actions. I am just asking honest questions.
**So, Gottle of Geer:
- What are your thoughts on allegory—and
- The selective revelation of Christ’s Truth?
- Do you believe that our one lifetime on this earth is our only chance for salvation?**
Always Questioning. . . .
Anna
C
Contarini
Guest
Like a lot of Christian polemicists, I think Luther exaggerated Jewish claims of superiority (there are some parts of Jewish tradition that point in that direction, and others that speak very generously of righteous Gentiles). And this accusation against Jews certainly paved the way for racial anti-Semitism. It’s an unfortunate part of human nature that if we perceive others as doing something bad to us, our response is often to do the same bad thing to them (and hence often to fabricate or exaggerate claims that they are doing this bad thing so as to justify our own actions) rather than avoiding the bad action. However, the reason I cited this passage is that Luther is clearly condemning any claim of racial superiority by anyone, and this passage is a powerful protest centuries in advance against Nazi racial ideology–all the more powerful because of the way Luther’s anti-Jewish polemic was exploited by the Nazis.
Well, I’m dubious about a lot of his alleged contributions, actually. I think Luther was a very interesting theologian with some good ideas and some bad ones. I am not a big fan of “reformers” as a category, and Luther’s more atrocious words and deeds are Exhibit A for the prosecution in that particular case!
I understand and respect that. I apologize for the sarcastic things I’ve said. Unfortunately, you’ve jumped into the middle of an argument I’ve had many times with Catholic propagandists on this forum. They use Luther’s “anti-Semitism” in order to shake up Protestants and pave the way for the simplistic, triumphalistic claims they want to advance on behalf of Catholicism.
I ought not to have responded to you in a way shaped by my experience with these kinds of arguments, and I apologize for doing so.
- Status