A
ahimsaman72
Guest
That is your opinion and I accept it. I just don’t agree with it - of course.
Peace…
- Status
Peace…
G
Gilbert_Keith
Guest
Ahimsaman
*so maybe given time I would die for the faith.
Ah, now you’re cooking!
Which faith? The Baptist faith? Then there must be something about that faith that makes you so infallibly certain it would be worth dying for.
And what infallible certainty would that be?
Certainly you wouldn’t die for something you were not certain of. Would you?
*so maybe given time I would die for the faith.
Ah, now you’re cooking!
Which faith? The Baptist faith? Then there must be something about that faith that makes you so infallibly certain it would be worth dying for.
And what infallible certainty would that be?
Certainly you wouldn’t die for something you were not certain of. Would you?
A
ahimsaman72
Guest
Gilbert Keith:
To me it wouldn’t matter if it was Baptist or Lutheran or whatever - again because not one group has the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I appreciate Luther’s thoughts and direction, but still adhere to Baptist principles.
Most all the denominations are based on Christ and His atonement for sin - his Divinity and God’s plan of salvation. Most everything else I consider peripheral. Christianity is about the person of Christ or it’s simply another method of dealing with the world. I would like to think it is different than all other religions based simply on the person of Christ.
As I stated - given time I may find my zeal again for the Christian faith. Again, I would not die for a belief (I don’t think), but perhaps would die for being a Christian. I do not see any denomination worth dying for. A person - yes. An organization - no.
And again - I claim no infallibility - I’m a simple human being among many others.
Peace…
Given my present spiritual life and faith in Christianity (as a whole) it would take some time for me to die for it.
To me it wouldn’t matter if it was Baptist or Lutheran or whatever - again because not one group has the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I appreciate Luther’s thoughts and direction, but still adhere to Baptist principles.
Most all the denominations are based on Christ and His atonement for sin - his Divinity and God’s plan of salvation. Most everything else I consider peripheral. Christianity is about the person of Christ or it’s simply another method of dealing with the world. I would like to think it is different than all other religions based simply on the person of Christ.
As I stated - given time I may find my zeal again for the Christian faith. Again, I would not die for a belief (I don’t think), but perhaps would die for being a Christian. I do not see any denomination worth dying for. A person - yes. An organization - no.
And again - I claim no infallibility - I’m a simple human being among many others.
Peace…
G
Gilbert_Keith
Guest
Ahimsaman
*And again - I claim no infallibility - I’m a simple human being among many others.
*
For me this is a good sign. It means you are like Catholics, who also claim no infallibility because the Church claims it for them in the Body of Christ through his apostles and their successors … or we would all be dangling and twisting in the wind.
The fundamental problem of Protestantism as a whole is that all the branches taken together cannot be preaching the Truth because the Truth is never divided against itself. Though each claims to be true as against the one universal Catholic Church, none can trace themselves farther back than Luther. This presents an insurmountable problem for their claim to truth. If the only Western Church of the Middle Ages was the Catholic Church, and it was not infallible, how can any of the offshoots of that same Church from the time of Luther on consider themselves to be in possession of infallible truth? They can’t. And yet they do, and many Protestants have lived and died for the truth they believe to be infallibly true.
God bless,
Gilbert
*And again - I claim no infallibility - I’m a simple human being among many others.
*
For me this is a good sign. It means you are like Catholics, who also claim no infallibility because the Church claims it for them in the Body of Christ through his apostles and their successors … or we would all be dangling and twisting in the wind.
The fundamental problem of Protestantism as a whole is that all the branches taken together cannot be preaching the Truth because the Truth is never divided against itself. Though each claims to be true as against the one universal Catholic Church, none can trace themselves farther back than Luther. This presents an insurmountable problem for their claim to truth. If the only Western Church of the Middle Ages was the Catholic Church, and it was not infallible, how can any of the offshoots of that same Church from the time of Luther on consider themselves to be in possession of infallible truth? They can’t. And yet they do, and many Protestants have lived and died for the truth they believe to be infallibly true.
God bless,
Gilbert
A
ahimsaman72
Guest
Mickey, I sincerely admire your faith. I don’t have that. I haven’t seen such great sincerity and loyalty lately. God is pleased with such faith - of that I am sure. I personally have a lot of issues to go through before I come close to this.
Many blessings to you as always…I always enjoy discussions with you.
Peace…
A
ahimsaman72
Guest
Gilbert Keith:
The same can be true of the gospels of Christ. If you simply took them at face value you could say there are hundreds of discrepancies between the gospel writers. Many people have written up and listed the supposed discrepancies.
However, they can be explained away. It was four men writing of their experiences or experiences of those they knew that is contained in their writings. They appear to contradict, but again, using the analogy of the accident - people see and remember different aspects of the same truth.
One car crashed into another -
And, one person named Jesus changed the world as we know it-
Peace…
If they are preaching the truth of the revelation of God in the person of Christ then they are teaching the Truth. The Truth is not divided against itself. People simply perceive it in different ways. I’ve used the analogy of a car accident. Ten people see a particular accident and saw different things.
The same can be true of the gospels of Christ. If you simply took them at face value you could say there are hundreds of discrepancies between the gospel writers. Many people have written up and listed the supposed discrepancies.
However, they can be explained away. It was four men writing of their experiences or experiences of those they knew that is contained in their writings. They appear to contradict, but again, using the analogy of the accident - people see and remember different aspects of the same truth.
One car crashed into another -
And, one person named Jesus changed the world as we know it-
Peace…
G
Gilbert_Keith
Guest
ahimsaman
*but again, using the analogy of the accident - people see and remember different aspects of the same truth.
One car crashed into another -
And, one person named Jesus changed the world as we know it-
Well and good. You are infallibly certain of at least one truth here, are you not? Or could you be wrong that Jesus changed the world as we know it?
The analogy of the car crash doesn’t work for me. That a car crashed into another is of no use if you are trying to assess responsibility for the crash. In a court of law, you have to have witnesses … and these witnesses have to be reliable … they can’t all be contradicting each other right and left as to what happened or else the jury will never have a certainty beyond a shadow of a doubt. The case will be thrown out of court … or will never go to trial in the first place.
But the minor discrepancies in the Gospels can be reconciled by the major consistencies. And these major consistencies are preserved and protected by the one Church charged to preserve and protect them … the church built upon a rock named Peter. Was that the Lutheran Church? Was that the Baptist Church? Was that the Methodist Church. Was that the Church of England? Or was it the Church of Rome which gave us the canon of the Bible that all later Protestant churches use to this day?
*but again, using the analogy of the accident - people see and remember different aspects of the same truth.
One car crashed into another -
And, one person named Jesus changed the world as we know it-
Well and good. You are infallibly certain of at least one truth here, are you not? Or could you be wrong that Jesus changed the world as we know it?
The analogy of the car crash doesn’t work for me. That a car crashed into another is of no use if you are trying to assess responsibility for the crash. In a court of law, you have to have witnesses … and these witnesses have to be reliable … they can’t all be contradicting each other right and left as to what happened or else the jury will never have a certainty beyond a shadow of a doubt. The case will be thrown out of court … or will never go to trial in the first place.
But the minor discrepancies in the Gospels can be reconciled by the major consistencies. And these major consistencies are preserved and protected by the one Church charged to preserve and protect them … the church built upon a rock named Peter. Was that the Lutheran Church? Was that the Baptist Church? Was that the Methodist Church. Was that the Church of England? Or was it the Church of Rome which gave us the canon of the Bible that all later Protestant churches use to this day?
A
ahimsaman72
Guest
Gilbert Keith:
The apostles sent letters to the churches in the Bible. They called for them to be READ ALOUD in the congregation. Scripture was not meant for the church at Rome to have and to hold from this day forward. The Scripture (the revelation of God to man) was meant for the world - to be read, pondered and lived by all peoples.
By Luther’s time the laity had virtually no instruction in how to live the Christian life. That’s why he wrote the small and large catechism - to instruct Christian families. That’s why I think it’s incredible when the claim goes out with the bullhorn about how the Catholic Church is the protector of Scripture and the Christian faith. It protected it almost into oblivion.
You would not see mass conversions across the globe if it wasn’t for the zeal of the protestants beginning almost five hundred years ago. And these conversions are heartfelt - not demanded.
Peace…
I’m not infallibly certain about anything. I don’t make “ex cathedra” statements about any faith or moral. It can be proven empirically that Jesus Christ changed the world. The advent of Christianity changed governments, cultures and people irrevocably. Again, we could list the changes easily.
If they are all contradicting each other you have to figure out which one is lying or simply mistaken. You’re actually making my case for me. All these contradicting beliefs are further proof that there is no unified absolute truth to go by. The case for the church of absolute truth is thrown out of court in my book.
The same church which kept this Scripture to itself and it took Wycliffe, Tyndale and others down the road to give it to the world? Why keep it out of the hands of the laity for over 1,000 years? Why not give it to the people in their own language and let them read it?
The apostles sent letters to the churches in the Bible. They called for them to be READ ALOUD in the congregation. Scripture was not meant for the church at Rome to have and to hold from this day forward. The Scripture (the revelation of God to man) was meant for the world - to be read, pondered and lived by all peoples.
By Luther’s time the laity had virtually no instruction in how to live the Christian life. That’s why he wrote the small and large catechism - to instruct Christian families. That’s why I think it’s incredible when the claim goes out with the bullhorn about how the Catholic Church is the protector of Scripture and the Christian faith. It protected it almost into oblivion.
You would not see mass conversions across the globe if it wasn’t for the zeal of the protestants beginning almost five hundred years ago. And these conversions are heartfelt - not demanded.
Peace…
G
Gilbert_Keith
Guest
*The same church which kept this Scripture to itself and it took Wycliffe, Tyndale and others down the road to give it to the world? Why keep it out of the hands of the laity for over 1,000 years? Why not give it to the people in their own language and let them read it?
*
Try reading some history instead of protestant propaganda about how the Bible was kept from the people by the Catholic Church.
It was not a protestant (Lutheran, Baptist, Anglican, Methodist, etc., nor any other modern denomination) who put the bible together and approved its use in all the lands. It was a council of Catholic bishops. Read some history.
It was not a protestant who invented the printing press and made possible the distribution of hundreds of thousands of copies throughout Europe all at once. A Catholic did this … and he honored the Bible by making it the first book ever printed. Read some history.
It was not a protestant who developed the university system in Europe that later gave rise to the education of the masses so that they would be literate enough to read the Bible you say they were forbidden to read. (And which laid the groundwork for the Renaissance, by the way.) It was the Catholic bishops and monks of Europe who created that organized system of education to which we are heirs, and which is now pretty much in the hands of atheistic humanists. Read some history.
It was the protestants who used that book to make thousands of competing Christian sects, thereby ruining the unity of Christendom and weakening its ability to stave off the rise of modern atheistic humanism. There was virtually no atheism in the Middle Ages when the Catholic Church alone dominated Europe. Read some history.
My wife is reading this over my shoulder. She says to tell you that you have been brainwashed like she was by the Church of Christ in Oklahoma. She wants you to read some history and join up!!!
*
Try reading some history instead of protestant propaganda about how the Bible was kept from the people by the Catholic Church.
It was not a protestant (Lutheran, Baptist, Anglican, Methodist, etc., nor any other modern denomination) who put the bible together and approved its use in all the lands. It was a council of Catholic bishops. Read some history.
It was not a protestant who invented the printing press and made possible the distribution of hundreds of thousands of copies throughout Europe all at once. A Catholic did this … and he honored the Bible by making it the first book ever printed. Read some history.
It was not a protestant who developed the university system in Europe that later gave rise to the education of the masses so that they would be literate enough to read the Bible you say they were forbidden to read. (And which laid the groundwork for the Renaissance, by the way.) It was the Catholic bishops and monks of Europe who created that organized system of education to which we are heirs, and which is now pretty much in the hands of atheistic humanists. Read some history.
It was the protestants who used that book to make thousands of competing Christian sects, thereby ruining the unity of Christendom and weakening its ability to stave off the rise of modern atheistic humanism. There was virtually no atheism in the Middle Ages when the Catholic Church alone dominated Europe. Read some history.
My wife is reading this over my shoulder. She says to tell you that you have been brainwashed like she was by the Church of Christ in Oklahoma. She wants you to read some history and join up!!!
G
Gilbert_Keith
Guest
Ahimsaman
*I’m not infallibly certain about anything. I don’t make “ex cathedra” statements about any faith or moral. *
This is a peculiar saying. Are you saying that as a Baptist you cannot make any “infallible” statements about your own religion?
In other words, you can’t be certain of the Ten Commandments?
Maybe they were really just Ten Suggestions?
If you can’t be absolutely certain of the Ten Commandments, what else is there you can’t be absolutely certain of? Are you not absolutely certain of the Trinity? Are you not absolutely certain of the saving grace of Baptism? Are you not absolutely certain that Christ’s death opened the gates of Heaven? You are not infallibly certain of any of these things?
Then why call yourself a Christian when you sound so much like an Agnostic.
O.K. I cut you some slack. You have abandoned Buddhists for the Baptists. But you need to accomodate the teachings of Christ by accepting them without reserve.
That is why I say all protestants really believe in infallibility. They just want to hug it all to themselves rather than surrender it to the teaching authority of the Church which receives it from the Holy Spirit and protects it from corruption by splintering it into thousands of conflicting infallible “truths.”
*I’m not infallibly certain about anything. I don’t make “ex cathedra” statements about any faith or moral. *
This is a peculiar saying. Are you saying that as a Baptist you cannot make any “infallible” statements about your own religion?
In other words, you can’t be certain of the Ten Commandments?
Maybe they were really just Ten Suggestions?
If you can’t be absolutely certain of the Ten Commandments, what else is there you can’t be absolutely certain of? Are you not absolutely certain of the Trinity? Are you not absolutely certain of the saving grace of Baptism? Are you not absolutely certain that Christ’s death opened the gates of Heaven? You are not infallibly certain of any of these things?
Then why call yourself a Christian when you sound so much like an Agnostic.
O.K. I cut you some slack. You have abandoned Buddhists for the Baptists. But you need to accomodate the teachings of Christ by accepting them without reserve.
That is why I say all protestants really believe in infallibility. They just want to hug it all to themselves rather than surrender it to the teaching authority of the Church which receives it from the Holy Spirit and protects it from corruption by splintering it into thousands of conflicting infallible “truths.”
M
Mystophilus
Guest
Amen.
A
AquinasXVI
Guest
Man is not totally depraved, if that were true it means we’re all devils.
Historical man is good (per Genesis when God created him) but he has a fallen (broken or wounded) nature after Original Sin.
That term totally depraved is totally unbiblical.
in XT.
Historical man is good (per Genesis when God created him) but he has a fallen (broken or wounded) nature after Original Sin.
That term totally depraved is totally unbiblical.
in XT.
A
ahimsaman72
Guest
Gilbert Keith:
Of course I cannot make infallible statements about my religion. No one in their right mind could do that. Most will tell you that the only infallible “thing” is Scripture. Scripture itself says it is God-breathed and profitable for doctrine, reproof and instruction in righteousness.
As I have already said - you cannot make infallible statements, neither I, nor any other human or organization on earth. I don’t see how that labels me an agnostic? An agnostic declares, “I don’t know if there’s a God or not”. I declare that I believe there is a God and X, Y and Z are true. I can do so and still not claim infallibility. I believe X, Y and Z, but that doesn’t mean I can’t err. It’s simply the acknowledgement that I’m human and imperfect.
Peace…
I was born and raised a Southern Baptist and left it a couple of years ago to study other religions. I’m now back timidly into my past Baptist faith. No one brainwashed me. I personally studied Mormonism, Catholicism, the Lutheran Church, Seventh-Day Adventists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and all three main traditions of Buddhism. I didn’t take one person’s word for anything.
Of course I cannot make infallible statements about my religion. No one in their right mind could do that. Most will tell you that the only infallible “thing” is Scripture. Scripture itself says it is God-breathed and profitable for doctrine, reproof and instruction in righteousness.
As I have already said - you cannot make infallible statements, neither I, nor any other human or organization on earth. I don’t see how that labels me an agnostic? An agnostic declares, “I don’t know if there’s a God or not”. I declare that I believe there is a God and X, Y and Z are true. I can do so and still not claim infallibility. I believe X, Y and Z, but that doesn’t mean I can’t err. It’s simply the acknowledgement that I’m human and imperfect.
Peace…
A
ahimsaman72
Guest
Gilbert Keith said:
Historical accuracy is in the hands of the powerful and mighty. Look at any school textbook and you will find errors. You will find omissions of valuable information and outright false teachings. You will find certain areas of American history glossed over and prettied up to the point where it no longer is honest.
No brainwashing here. As a matter of fact, it would be relatively easy to conclude that by nature I’m a skeptic and the farthest one around from conforming to one person or organizations views. I don’t spout Southern Baptist Convention doctrines as gospel or any other protestants doctrines as gospel.
Peace…
M
Mickey
Guest
I look at this differently. There are many contradicting beliefs, but only ONE absolute truth. And so we must discern which one is the absolute truth. My conscience tells me that the one who put together the NT canon—the one with an unbroken line of bishops tracing back to the Apostles–the one with a rich history of writings from the Church Fathers some of which were disciples of the Apostles–the one with a teaching magisterium that provides us with a non-contradictory and complementary interpretation of the Holy Scriptures—There is no other choice for me. Reformed churches have some of this truth. Where did they get this from? The Catholic Church. There are many holy, devout and decent people within the protestant churches. And there is no doubt in my mind that many will be saved–it is not my place to judge them. But while I live on this earth, I feel compelled to worship in the Church with the fullness of truth. And I will strive to live a life pleasing to God as I work out my salvation with fear and trembling. “For many are called but few are chosen” (Matt 22:14)
Peace and blessings to you my friend. I also enjoy our discussions.
Mickey
A
ahimsaman72
Guest
Hahaha…I like your signature - it really conforms to what I’m saying in this thread - however, my many words are not near as eloquent or to the point as your signature. Thanks.
Peace…
M
Mickey
Guest
Your profile says that you are a heretic. What does this mean?
A
ahimsaman72
Guest
We are all devils of one sort or another. If we were not there would be no wars, no violence, no hatred, etc. If it’s not of God, then what is it? Is war, violence, hatred, murder, lying from God? You would say no. But it comes from humanity.
Historical man was as corrupt as modern man. Has mankind changed at all over the years? Has technology changed the inner man? Has wealth and prosperity changed the inner man? Has democracy, socialism or communism changed the inner man?
Man is still by his very nature sinful and depraved. If he is glorious and sinless then why did Christ come and save us?
What a curious post?!?!
Peace…
A
ahimsaman72
Guest
I certainly see what you mean, however, I’ve studied many denoms and their claims. I’ve found not one denom that was free from error. What I have found is that many different groups make some really good points and based on the evidence given - I cannot decide who is truthful and accurate.I look at this differently. There are many contradicting beliefs, but only ONE absolute truth. And so we must discern which one is the absolute truth. My conscience tells me that the one who put together the NT canon—the one with an unbroken line of bishops tracing back to the Apostles–the one with a rich history of writings from the Church Fathers some of which were disciples of the Apostles–the one with a teaching magisterium that provides us with a non-contradictory and complementary interpretation of the Holy Scriptures—There is no other choice for me. Reformed churches have some of this truth. Where did they get this from? The Catholic Church. There are many holy, devout and decent people within the protestant churches. And there is no doubt in my mind that many will be saved–it is not my place to judge them. But while I live on this earth, I feel compelled to worship in the Church with the fullness of truth. And I will strive to live a life pleasing to God as I work out my salvation with fear and trembling. “For many are called but few are chosen” (Matt 22:14)
Peace and blessings to you my friend. I also enjoy our discussions.
Mickey
It reminds me of Joseph Smith Jr. He looked around at the competing denoms and said to himself that surely one must be right and so he asked God about it. While the rest of the story is debateable and to me is without merit, it was a very human response to the situation.
I actually see a lot of myself in him, except I don’t want to start another denomination or priesthood
. I really liked the article of faith he wrote in which he said (paraphrasing because I don’t have my Book of Mormon with me) that “let all men worship whomever they choose to worship”. That is very profound and I believe he was at least an intelligent, thoughtful man.Whether he was right or not is debateable
.Peace and blessings to you friend…
A
AquinasXVI
Guest
Ahimsaman:
Take time to study the nature of evil. Yes, each man is born with original sin and that is washed away by baptism. Then we all experience personal sin when we do not obey the will of God in our personal lives. We are under constant temptation and we have a weak inclination to give in, that is called concupiscence. All of this goes under our state as having a broken nature.
But, when God created man, he said it was good. Even after the Fall, he did not say that man is now “totally depraved.” How can the only being in the universe “formed in the image and likeness of God” be at the same time TOTALLY DEPRAVED? Where is that in the bible?
Take a second look at this idea of total depravity. We may say we are sinful and we have to a great degree depravity compared to Adam prior to the fall, but TOTAL depravity means there is not in us when we are born an aota of the good, noble and true. Look at a new born baby and see if that child is totally depraved, or do we see a good creation of God?
in XT.
Take time to study the nature of evil. Yes, each man is born with original sin and that is washed away by baptism. Then we all experience personal sin when we do not obey the will of God in our personal lives. We are under constant temptation and we have a weak inclination to give in, that is called concupiscence. All of this goes under our state as having a broken nature.
But, when God created man, he said it was good. Even after the Fall, he did not say that man is now “totally depraved.” How can the only being in the universe “formed in the image and likeness of God” be at the same time TOTALLY DEPRAVED? Where is that in the bible?
Take a second look at this idea of total depravity. We may say we are sinful and we have to a great degree depravity compared to Adam prior to the fall, but TOTAL depravity means there is not in us when we are born an aota of the good, noble and true. Look at a new born baby and see if that child is totally depraved, or do we see a good creation of God?
in XT.
- Status