You've never heard a sermon? Is there a difference between hearing a sermon and reading a book? Were the Apostolic Fathers correct in everything? How do you know? When were their errors corrected and who correct them? How do you know the corrections are correct?
Off topic again.
I'm replying now but will no longer reply to any statement not pertaining to the theme of the OP....
Sermons are meant to encourage people after a week in the world.
If they go beyond this...it's a lesson and would be more suitable to bible study.
Yes. The Apostolic Fathers were correct in 99% (nothing is perfect).
I know because the Apostles taught them.
Jesus taught the Apostles.
If they don't know,,,,who would know??
No errors to correct.
Who are you to judge that they are (merely) "Men's ideas"? How do you know that the Holy Spirit didn't guide them into the truth of what they say? Are you the only one able to "hear the Holy Spirit," the only one to whom God gives true understanding of Scripture? (Just rhetorical to get you thinking; not meant to be harsh.)
It's a man
It's an idea
THUS....It's a man's idea.
I prefer God's ideas which are found in the bible He inspired.
Free, I've been thinking for over 45 years.
I doubt there's any topic you could bring up to which I don't have a reply.
The Holy Spirit:
Do YOU hear the Holy Spirit?
How come we don't agree in our theology?
How do we determine who is correct?
Please start a new thread...
Well, that could be a part of the problem. As I stated previously, we are never to "do theology," that is, try and understand God and his revelation to us, by ourselves. This actually sets oneself up as the chief theologian and Bible scholar in all Christian history. Not a great place to be. Christians are called to loving community, that is at the core of what we are called to. And that absolutely includes "doing theology."
But you see....I'm not all by myself setting up my own theology.
You're not grasping what I'm saying.
I read the bible.
I read the Apostolic Fathers. The Patriarchs.
I DO NOT make up my own theology.
Others. OTOH, are reading up on new theology which came about one thousand five hundred years after Jesus and believe THEY have the truth.
There is no new revelation after Jesus.
The Mormons are wrong,
The JW are wrong,
All others that came about 1,500 years after Jesus are necessarily wrong because they're ideas of men.
Besides, as was pointed out in another thread, without the voices of all theologians and scholars past and present, we are significantly more likely to fall into error, as the whole "the Holy Spirit is all I need" idea is highly subjective. How does one know if the Holy Spirit is actually speaking to them? There was one point on these forums many years ago when several members were saying that only the Holy Spirit led them to understand the Bible, and they all eschewed "the writings of men." Yet, they all disagreed with each other on various things, each convinced they were right because "the Holy Spirit told them."
I'm not in the above group so I won't reply.
Where did I ever state that the Holy Spirit is all one needs?
Not me...
It doesn't mean the Holy Spirit will not illuminate something as we read, but we must listen to God when he says he gifts certain believers with the ability to teach, and therefore understand that his primary way of communicating to us by his Spirit, is through others, not independent of others. This is all the more important today, being 2000 years out, reading English translations of writings written in languages that haven't been around for quite some time. All the more reason we need to consult commentaries and lexicons.
Commentaries are of men.
You post one you agree with,
I post one I agree with.
Where has that gotten us?
Lexicons are pretty much useless.
Also, it means you don't trust the translators of the bible you're reading.
You think Strong's could explain a word in a sentence?
You think we know what an aorist tense is?
It's not even a time....it's an action.
I know theologian (go figure) who speaks 7 languages or so.
I asked him about the aorist tense when it was all the rage about 4 yrs or so ago.
He said to forget about trying to understand it unless I wanted to learn Greek.
I speak 3 languages.
I think I know about translating stuff.
But, we will never find the answer if we don't discuss sin
What answer?
What are we discussing in this thread?
But, again, his nature is at the very center of it all. It alone shows exactly why there is no difference between God in the OT and in the NT.
He hates all sin, but the world is fallen and we are the cause of it.
And soon it'll all end. Again.
Somehow.
Because, God didn't and absolutely cannot murder nor command murder. Because God is perfectly holy, he is perfectly just and justified in punishing sin through death, even if it means women and children.
No comment.
Possibly. But, what about genetics? Those do predispose people to certain things. However, it is also possible that, as with the Israelites, God often deals with people groups as a whole. The whole American and Western idea of super-individualism must largely be left at the door when it comes to Scripture (and living the Christian life).
I believe it must be left at the door in all cases.
I like the group mentality.
I live in a place that practices this.
Exo 34:6 The LORD passed before him and proclaimed, “The LORD, the LORD, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness,
Exo 34:7 keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children's children, to the third and the fourth generation.” (ESV)
What does to the 3rd or 4th generation mean?
We could get into this on a different thread.
But look at this:
Ezekiel 18:20
The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.
Is this another conflict?
But, this is a misunderstanding of the utter sinfulness of sin. (I think that is probably the biggest problem in the Church, at least in the West.) The innocent, including Canaanite children and all the Israelites, were in immediate danger. Murder is killing without justification. God is always justified in punishing sin, even by death.
How were the Israelites in immediate danger?
They weren't.
They didn't just wake up one day and walk into Canaan and kill everyone.
It took planning and time.
Was the purpose to rid the land of the Baal worshippers?
Or was it to provide land for the Israelites?
If it was to rid the land of the baal worshippers, I would hope that He could have done it sooner to put a stop, if for nothing else, all the babies that were offered up to baal, and in a rather horrific method.
You see Free...many questions come up.
It's not as simple as some members here are making this.
Aside from the fact that we're not addressing the topic...
It makes all the difference. If God murdered, it means he killed without justification, and then I would absolutely agree that something is wrong. But, he didn't, because God is perfectly holy, which means everything he does is always perfectly just.
Of course, I agree.
But my above questions need answering too.
Absolutely not.
Absolutely.
Sin and God's judgement, based on his nature, are the very core of this topic. That has been my point from the start. Sin is abhorrent to God, so much so that he says the wages of sin is death. So, it must be judged and punished if he is Holy, Just, and Loving, and it all will be.
The horrific wickedness in Noah's day resulted in a flood killed almost everyone. The horrific wickedness of the Canaanites resulted in God's command to wipe them out, lest the Israelites join in their sin (which they ended up doing and also ended up paying dearly for). At the end of all things, everyone who didn't accept Christ's sacrifice and put their faith in him will face the worst punishment of all. The OT is tame compared to the lake of fire.
Answered.
