Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The only ones being disobedient are the ones perpetuating the lie of universalism. Latte' Chic had an excellent, truthful post and she should be commended for that. You should try reading it and heeding her words.
Tell me Ilene, a question to ask yourself and you too Latte-Chic, and Mike and sciotamic and Jremy is this:
Who is suffering reproach on these boards due to being obedient to this charge:
(10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe. (11) These things command and teach.
Mod interruption..Folks, lets stop right now with the flames, the insults and the childish back and forth sarcasm..This is the Christianity forum where we DISCUSS things of interest to Christians..We attack the idea (respectfully) not the person/people..
If you want to continue this discussion be aware of the very first 5 words in the TOS of City Data.
.
I love you all, but will follow rules of the TOS without predjudice..
Why is it important in psychology which theory, at least at a particular moment in time, dominates? Why didn't the aircraft design stay with the wright brothers method of warping wings for control? Why was there idealism and then existentialism? Why do peoples debate whether to be commies or capitalists? Human knowledge always moves. As long as there are these contradictions that need to be worked through then knowledge progresses-these are good things. People outside of particular categories of thought may think that contradictions in these categories that they observe are not important. This is a mistake as the social is made up of these categories and the effects ripple through out the system. For example, the Islam extremists are all in a tizzy because their's is a religious system (a stalled rationality) in place that can not move into modernity because of the limitations imposed upon it by the theology (anti-free speech and equality for females). It is surrounded by a modern world that continually presses in on them, so it finds itself in contradiction to it-it does not have the means to get past the contradiction, so it will fail and they know it.
I doubt if the "church" could hold councils any longer. The individual churches are too divided and self governing-segmented structure, would be the proper sociological term. There is no particular methodology that runs through the whole system of christianity that could bind a decision. One only needs to run some posts on this forum to see that there are "christians" that run from, the bible being the truth in exactly what it says to one can be a christian without the bible. In aircraft design, I suppose the so called laws of physics, metallurgy, available engines, and such, establish a somewhat agreed upon stream of logic or thought that makes making airplanes follow a certain agreed upon form of design amongst the various companies. But abstract thought may lack this. When the catholic church was about all there was and one went to hell if one disagreed with it, and at the time only a about 10% of the population could even read, were uneducated, and the services were in a language they did not understand, then a decision could be imposed. Now, christians (and I imagine shrinks, philosophers, atheists, and who knows what else) just have relationships of tension with those that disagree, and these contradictions are worked through by methods (unreflective or reflective) that strengthen one's position-how can it all be resolved? I personally would ignore a church council's decision I did not like.
The lack of an agreed upon method, it seems to me, is the problem. If one studies the break in the church at the reformation, one finds that a theological method was established by the reformers to counter one that the catholics had. That method sets up protestantism and went by the term sola scriptura or scripture only, to break the protestants from the church that had introduced man's thoughts (the church's) as having some authority besides scripture (it did not last long as immediately protestantism broke up into many sects). If all christians followed one of these, then a rational conclusion to such a contradiction could be accepted by the members if it followed out the accepted method. Christianity, today, has no method-it does not know how it knows what it knows.
Here is an example of the rudderless christianity in action in a contemporary controversy. The recently ordained gay bishop of the episcopalian church said this when he was ordained-"perhaps god is doing something new" (the issue for me here is not that he is gay-so don't turn it into that). He says "perhaps"-he does not know and there is no "authority" to tell him but mere opinion of those who favor or are opposed to his ordination, the church moved without settling the "will" of god, because it no longer knows how to determine such a will (I am not saying there is a god or not-that has nothing to do with the method of determining such a thing as its will). It had no method to find out such a thing. Obviously, sola scriptura is not used (as it is no longer used any where) and other non theological factors were used to determine this ordination (this would make a great masters thesis), such as social environment, ideology, some bible, philosophy, etc-who knows what all. This sort of resembles a return to the catholic method of determining "truth" where human thought now carries weight in interpreting the will of god along with the bible. This, though, as a method, can no longer be enforced with a universal application as the old catholic church could do. Everyone now is one's own authority and "truth" holder in the cosmos (thankfully, this does not happen too often in airplane design). The other episcopalians that don't like it just split off. That is what all christians do nowadays.
Originally Posted by Eusebius sciotamicks, just quit being disobedient to our Lord as to 1 Tim.4:11.
If the message of coming to Christ contradicts 1 Timothy 2:4-6 and 4:10,11 then it is a lie.
It isn't. Just because your interpretation is skewed in ther UR paradigm, doesn't make it right, or even believable.
Quote:
During this age God is choosing and calling out those who are to be part of the body of Christ believers. The rest are not chosen. But God will save them too eventually as He said He would.
I can agree with you on this point. This is termed eschatological Universalism, a far cry from Lake of Fire redemption Universalsim, which is what is so prevalent here at CD....a true heresy.
Quote:
Now sciotamicks, QUIT BEING DISOBEDIENT TO GOD AND TO OUR LORD!
1 Timothy 2:3-6 KJV For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; (4) Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. (5) For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; (6) Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
1 Timothy 4:9-11 KJV This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation. (10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe. (11) These things command and teach.
QUIT BEING DISOBEDIENT!
Now Eusebius, I am not being disobedient to our Lord, but you my brother, are in one way. You are interpreting this passage wrongly. All these passages are stating is that the partition has been removed, so that all, Gentiles, can come to the knowledge of the Lord, all, kings, queens, slave, free, rich and poor...all mankind....not just the Jewish. THat is all this s saying...the whole purpose for Paul's commission, was the unite the human race without ethical distinctions.
Obviously, sola scriptura is not used (as it is no longer used any where) and other non theological factors were used to determine this ordination (this would make a great masters thesis), such as social environment, ideology, some bible, philosophy, etc-who knows what all.
The most important factor has been our understanding of human psychology and the roots of our negative emotions (such as jealousy, anger, vengeance, egotism, etc.) The negative emotions are all the result of human weakness. Once a clear distinction is made between the positive and negative emotions . . . accepting a God with ANY negative human emotions becomes impossible.
Quote:
This sort of resembles a return to the catholic method of determining "truth" where human thought now carries weight in interpreting the will of god along with the bible. This, though, as a method, can no longer be enforced with a universal application as the old catholic church could do. Everyone now is one's own authority and "truth" holder in the cosmos (thankfully, this does not happen too often in airplane design). The other episcopalians that don't like it just split off. That is what all christians do nowadays.
If we are "Children of God" . . . then we are supposed to mature into independent, self-reliant adult members of God's kingdom . . . How better to acquire such self-reliance and independence???
Originally Posted by Eusebius
sciotamicks, just quit being disobedient to our Lord as to 1 Tim.4:11.
If the message of coming to Christ contradicts 1 Timothy 2:4-6 and 4:10,11 then it is a lie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sciotamicks
It isn't. Just because your interpretation is skewed in ther UR paradigm, doesn't make it right, or even believable.
Just because your interpretation is skewed in the Preterist paradigm, doesn't make it right, or even believable.
So if you find one scripture and pit that scripture against another, which scripture is the truth? or would both scriptures be a lie? Your paradigm cannot take at face value 1 Timothey 2:4-6 and 4:10,11. You have to make these verses say what God never intended them to say rather than taking them at face value.
Quote:
During this age God is choosing and calling out those who are to be part of the body of Christ believers. The rest are not chosen. But God will save them too eventually as He said He would.
Quote:
I can agree with you on this point. This is termed eschatological Universalism, a far cry from Lake of Fire redemption Universalsim, which is what is so prevalent here at CD....a true heresy.
I am not so sure you are in a position to proclaim what is heresy. No one is saved apart from what Christ accomplished in His death, burial and resurrection. Yet there are many Christians here that believe they have to add to what Christ did to be saved. Not me though.
Quote:
Now sciotamicks, QUIT BEING DISOBEDIENT TO GOD AND TO OUR LORD!
1 Timothy 2:3-6 KJV For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; (4) Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. (5) For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; (6) Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
1 Timothy 4:9-11 KJV This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation. (10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe. (11) These things command and teach.
QUIT BEING DISOBEDIENT!
Quote:
Now Eusebius, I am not being disobedient to our Lord, but you my brother, are in one way. You are interpreting this passage wrongly. All these passages are stating is that the partition has been removed, so that all, Gentiles, can come to the knowledge of the Lord, all, kings, queens, slave, free, rich and poor...all mankind....not just the Jewish. THat is all this s saying...the whole purpose for Paul's commission, was the unite the human race without ethical distinctions.
See what I mean? You can't take those passages at face value because your paradigm will not allow you. You have to twist them like a pretzel into all kinds of funny shapes. The point is that Christ ransomed all mankind. WOULD YOU PLEASE DO A STUDY ON RANSOM IN THE BIBLE? Once a ransom is made one cannot unransom themselves. They must be freed. All those who died before Christ died were ransomed. How could they refuse to be ransomed? All those born after Christ ransomed them how could they refuse to be ransomed? All those millions living in the world the day Christ ransomed them, how could they refuse to be ransomed? Since the ransom was paid God must honor it and free all.
Please, sciotamics, please I beg you to study out the ransom in the bible. You will be blessed.
The distinctions have to be made in theological thought otherwise one loses the religious-a religion based on psychological concepts is psychology (psychology, its discourse, rules in psychology, but it is not theological discourse, so it does not rule there; otherwise the categories get mixed and confused, but who cares nowadays as long as it turns out the way one wants; we all live lies anyway). Psychological thought will change as the theory changes, so psychological ideas are temporary until the new thesis comes along and creates the new contradiction (theology does the same, and I think Freud is on the outs for example). I think you are right, in a temporary historical setting though. Our "negative" emotions, the ones this culture (or some of it) interprets as "negative" (a culture may interpret these as something else later-how are we to know that what is negative now is actually negative?) now, and we wish to reject them, is then applied to god and the new god lacks them as well (we construct the god actually)-this follows the old sociological theory that the god is actually the people who worship it (the culture or tribe or church or mystic-Durkheim), and I think this is actually happening and that is why christianity is in such a tizzy, as it is trying to redefine its god as the post modern god (and theology will get it over the hump-but it will be post modern with many naratives). This is idolatry from the old (the modernity) orthodox theology (from a direct passage of the bible) side but perhaps not from various social sides, so called liberal theological side, law side, etc, of the culture (this is why there is an impasse, but eliminating the bible from the discussion will not unite christianity as a myriad of "truth" theories {narratives} all in conflict have already been developed and the bible is merely one tool among others for justification of positions).
The old idea was to find truth that was outside of the herd-beyond our limitations,bias, self serving, etc (the whole western project until the post modern-we are all children of the thought around us, maybe secondly a god if there is one, and you will never have some sort of independent existence apart from your fellows). God, as the absolute, was were this truth was thought to be and one needed to know this god to have the truth. In some theological systems the thought of man is corrupt and should be out side of the process as much as possible (like a phenomenological process where one attempts to set aside oneself-such as an objective science; one's personal bias or political position should not affect the fact of global warming as it "truly" is, but obviously we are in transition with our science as well and are projecting ourselves into it).
The problem, as always, is knowing and knowing, as you infer, exactly what we are and what we are to be. Derived from human thought, this will never be settled on something as man does not know what he is or what he "should" be (god or no god)-a brief history of philosophical, ethical, mystical, religious, political, and etc thought should point that out. You say "if we are, "children of god"....., I can easily say, from one theological point of view, we are not, from an atheistic point of view, we are not as there isn't any god, etc-you will have authority with your crowd and I will have authority with my......ummmmmmm, I have no followers, I guess myself. No one can establish the "truth" any longer; those days are gone, (perhaps for the best, as maybe you were inferring) but then the answer for the original question of this thread seems a bit inane as the answer seems to be "whatever".
The old view-let us assume for a moment that there is a real god-no one really knows for sure, so let's pretend. Let us think that this real god does not want any gay bishops (gay is not the issue here, just an occasion for the thought). Now, let us think that this god will really be mad if we make a gay bishop and we will be severely punished for such an act (no tv for a 100 years). But we are not sure as a herd, we need to know this. So we need some way of finding out what this god thinks. If we, as a herd, like gay bishops and just assume god does too-we transfer our characteristics to the god and then do the ordination because we think the god is like us, well we were wrong and no tv (the thought could be constructed the other way as well). If there is no god, then what this no-god thinks is irrelevant except as a thought projection of ourselves, then the god is anything and we see that that is the problem now-you have your god and I have mine: the impasse. As a projection, then what it thinks could have a big impact on the society as the god is the society (the greeks knew that when a people stopped believing in the gods the culture fell-athens and athena were the same). If there is a god, then one needs to know what it thinks and it may not think like us and that could be a problem, just as I don't think like you or you me-it is all different. Is "truth" something or just whatever gets one, that is the new way (thank a god it doesn't work that way for airplanes)?
Just because your interpretation is skewed in the Preterist paradigm, doesn't make it right, or even believable.
So if you find one scripture and pit that scripture against another, which scripture is the truth? or would both scriptures be a lie? Your paradigm cannot take at face value 1 Timothey 2:4-6 and 4:10,11. You have to make these verses say what God never intended them to say rather than taking them at face value.
Has nothing to do with the Preterist paradigm. It has to do with the knowledge of God opening up from the Jews, to the Gentile and Jews.
Quote:
I am not so sure you are in a position to proclaim what is heresy. No one is saved apart from what Christ accomplished in His death, burial and resurrection. Yet there are many Christians here that believe they have to add to what Christ did to be saved. Not me though.
Fair enough.
Quote:
See what I mean? You can't take those passages at face value because your paradigm will not allow you. You have to twist them like a pretzel into all kinds of funny shapes. The point is that Christ ransomed all mankind. WOULD YOU PLEASE DO A STUDY ON RANSOM IN THE BIBLE? Once a ransom is made one cannot unransom themselves. They must be freed. All those who died before Christ died were ransomed. How could they refuse to be ransomed? All those born after Christ ransomed them how could they refuse to be ransomed? All those millions living in the world the day Christ ransomed them, how could they refuse to be ransomed? Since the ransom was paid God must honor it and free all.
It's all about context, which is where your camp fails.
Quote:
Please, sciotamics, please I beg you to study out the ransom in the bible. You will be blessed.
I have, and I replied to you concerning this on another thread. I suggest you delve further into that you are a SLAVE to sin, Christ became sin (hence God forsaking Him...separation on the cross, because God is holy and can't have sin in Him, since Christ was Him in the flesh, there had to be a separation) in place of our sin, not the sinner, but the sin, so that the sinner, might be saved.
Has nothing to do with the Preterist paradigm. It has to do with the knowledge of God opening up from the Jews, to the Gentile and Jews.
It's all about context, which is where your camp fails.
Sorry, I'm not in a camp, I'm in Christ.
you wrote this concerning "ransom"
Quote:
I have [studied ransom], and I replied to you concerning this on another thread. I suggest you delve further into that you are a SLAVE to sin, Christ became sin (hence God forsaking Him...separation on the cross, because God is holy and can't have sin in Him, since Christ was Him in the flesh, there had to be a separation) in place of our sin, not the sinner, but the sin, so that the sinner, might be saved.
Yes, and you were wrong as to what "ransom" means in that other thread.
O.K. just tell me you aren't going to study ransom out in its every context and that you will put a hand over your mouth concerning Christ ransoming all mankind in 1 Timothy 2:6 and that ransom is the basis for why "God will save all mankind," because obviously you have proven to me you are not worthy of talking on this subject since you are not educated on this matter.
You tell me I am a slave to sin?
Rom 6:20 "For when you were slaves of Sin, you were free as to Righteousness." I am no longer a slave of Sin.
You are in Christ now, so now, you are a slave to Him:
Rom 6:22 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life.
The whole purpose of becoming a Christian. You again, cannot discern the context of ransom, or what any of us are saying to you. Open your eyes dear Eusebius!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
