I am starting to REALLY like the Catholics (OC plz read)

[stray bullet]

What absolutely pathetic speaking.

In love,
cj

When you actually want to approach someone with love and treating them in the same mannor Christ did, let me know and I'll talk to you.

 

[cj]

When you actually want to approach someone with love and treating them in the same mannor Christ did, let me know and I'll talk to you.

I doubt you would recognize what you speak of (love and Christ's manner) even if it came up and bite you in the butt.

For one to discern Christ one must first know Christ. And this is near impossible under an apostate ministry.

Just a head's up for you,.... your "talking" to me is neither here nor there.

In love,
cj

 

[Orthodoxy]

In 1054, offically, the Roman Catholic Church by the declaration that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father "and the Son" seperated themselves from the Church in its confession the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. This is your demonic possession for why would anyone change the words of Jesus Christ unless possessed? For 600 year the Roman Catholic Church confessed the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father then they changed this without full agreement of the Church. The Roman Church broke away from the Church in 1054 ad.

Nonsense. The Orthodox Church separated from the papacy of which the Bible says "the gates of hell shall not prevail". You believe there is some sort of a disconnect in the trinity by which it does not proceed from the Son? They didn't need the full agreement by the way. The Pope is infallible in faith and morals. You should have submitted to Rome. By the way it is not contradictory to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the father. Then to say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The second is more complete.
: :

it does not proceed from the Son?

The Holy Spirit is an "It" now in the Roman Catholic faith? Jesus never called the person of the Holy Spirit an "It". Submit to this blaphemous notion? Over my dead rotting body.

The second is a lie. If you insist on this language in the Christian Creed then you MUST erase John 15:26 from the bible. It is plain witchcraft to say other areas in the Scripture disprove the words of Jesus Christ. No place in the bible or christian history is the roman bishop the final authroity in the Church. The Church has always gathered in council to hash out doctrines and the final decisions are always made with full consent of the entire Church.

Tell me why, if the Nicene Creed of 381ad was incomplete, did the Roman Church for 600 years confess "the Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father"?

Tell me where an Ecumenical Council of the entire Church in full agreement added "and the Son" to procession of the Holy Spirit?

Give me one verse in the bible that Jesus is heard saying "the Holy Spirit proceeds from Me and My Father or my Father and I. Unless you can do that I will believe Jesus Christ and His Church over your pope.

Orthodoxy

 

[Orthodoxy]

One of the obstacles to reconciliation is that we have people on both sides taking a sort of Donatist position: "those people walked away, why should we restore them? Away with them."

And, much like that particular rebellion, we will have hierarchs who will have to discipline the super-rigorists who would stand in the way of reconciliation.

I think it appropriate for Catholic and Orthodox laity to allow their respective hierarchs to work through differences with our schismated brethren in the East, West, and among the non-Chalcedonian believers

James

James,

I am not of the Donatist position. I am all for reconciliation. But I am not for reconciliation if it means compromising the truth as understood by the Church for 2000 years. I have no problem reconciling with the pre 1054ad Roman Church but I refuse as did St. Maximus the Confessor to join with a demonic theology that changes the Nature of God and denies the words of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Most certainly we are warned to worship God alone, if we change the nature of this God we then no longer worship the one true God.

I am seeing a very uncomfortable attempt to ecumenicalize with the protestants and romans by compromising. To accept the Roman explaination of the "filioque" by the Roman Church is to deny the Christian faith. I pray the Orthodox Church does not fall in to this ecumenical trap placed before us by the roman/protestant churches. Ecumenicalism of the rebels is a cancer that will rip the Orthodox Church apart and set it a blaze.

My God have mercy on the souls that would deny His Church.

In Christ,

Orthodoxy

 

[Orthodoxy]

My brothers,
It does very little good to argue over what seperates us. Our Faith, since the time of the apostles, has never been about personal opinion. Rather we are asked to submit to the authority of the Church. The leaders of the East and West are working towards reunion...let's support our shepherds with prayer. May God, through the intercession of the Theotokos, grant us speedy reconciliation as Christ is truly Present among us.
In Him-
Elizabeth

Qualified Amen. I do not degree that theological debates are of little value among the laity. But I am all for the issues being resolved and when the East submits to the Papacy, that will happen. The other issues I think are minor compared to that. Until then, it's not going to happen. The Catholic Church would have to go back on all of Vatican I and II Lumen Gentium in order to go to the patriarchy of Orthodoxy. It would have to reject the already declared infallible canons of Vatican I concerning Papal infalliblity. This just isn't going to happen. It is not in line with scripture that it should.

That said I am all in favor of resolving these things and fully support the efforts on both sides.

Blessing

Were all the popes prior to 1054 ad infallible confessing that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father?

How can the pope before 1054ad be infallible confessing one God then be infallible confessing a god that is totally different than the one previously?

Seems the Popes prior to 1054 ad were sorely mistaken and could not have been infallible confessing the error of procession from the Father alone.

Orthodoxy

 

[Mathetes]

[quote="Soma-Sight":860b0]The Kingdom grows by attraction.

No, actually the kingdom grows through the word of God planted in people's hearts like a seed. The NT bears this out pretty clearly. Today's "attract people to Christ by your friendly deeds" method has no real support in the Bible. The apostles evangelized by preaching and teaching, and so it should be today. The message is the method.

Oh, you can get people to sign pledge cards if you scare them with hell and then give them the easy out (just say a prayer and join us, and avoid inifinite jail time). You can also build membership with slick preaching gifts and/or flashy media presentations. But neither of these build the household.

As much as I hate to bring up personal experience because ultimately it is God's word that is the final rule -- let me just say that the Lord converted me through my reading of a lengthy, detailed "hellfire and brimstone" sermon. This is not to say that God will use this exact method with everyone; however, what it DOES mean is that people must come under conviction of sin as part of the salvation process. Otherwise, what reason is there to come to Christ?

And both alienate those who are not compelled by either, those who are looking for the genuine article.

We should certainly be concerned about alienating others by our own foolish behavior. I think it was J.I. Packer who said that the Gospel carries enough offense on its own without our adding to it ourselves. However, never, NEVER be concerned if people are alienated by the direct, honest communication of the gospel message. There is nothing at all wrong with that as the Gospel is the power of God for salvation. If people are "not compelled" by gospel preaching, that is not an issue with either you or the gospel message; it is an issue with their unbelieving hearts that stubbornly refuse to submit to God.

Last night the monk was explaining how Assisi used to see Christ in ALL THINGS. His blood on the roses, his tears in the rain, his cross in the trees, etc.... That is awesome and I am surprised that I have never heard that kind of preaching before and it made my heart glad!

I've heard this saying attributed to St Francis:
"Preach the gospel at all times, and if necessary, use words." or some variant thereof.

[/quote:860b0]

I've heard that before, too, and you know what? I hate to sound harsh, and please forgive me if I come across that way, because you seem like a very sincere person and you make some good points, but that saying of St. Francis is one of the greatest falsehoods ever promoted in Christianity. I say this for good reason: It is impossible to be saved without learning the truth of the Gospel message. How can you believe in Christ if you don't know about him? How can you understand the true horrific nature of sin unless you have it taught to you? How can you know about the resurrection of Christ, not to mention His role as savior, without being taught about these things?

 

[Mathetes]

Funny isn't it,..... God gives each man breath to live and receive Him as eternal life, but the majority pay no heed to this, they have no appreciation for this great mercy and grace of the Creator.

But OC would have us believe that human kindness and human love shown towards an unbeliever will do the job.

It truly stretches the imagination, doesn't it? Not to mention it actually is nothing more than a display of human arrogance over the Creator. I mean, think of it: the sheer power of mere mortals to take that depraved human heart and work in it the mighty miracle required to transform it into a heart that is willing to submit to God! And all that from people whose hearts are just as depraved! Wow, human beings really are something. I mean, with this amazing power to convert the unregenerate human heart, why do we need the Holy Spirit at all? (This is a rhetorical question -- we need the Holy Spirit desperately!)

 

[Orthodox Christian]

Funny isn't it,..... God gives each man breath to live and receive Him as eternal life, but the majority pay no heed to this, they have no appreciation for this great mercy and grace of the Creator.

But OC would have us believe that human kindness and human love shown towards an unbeliever will do the job.

It truly stretches the imagination, doesn't it? Not to mention it actually is nothing more than a display of human arrogance over the Creator. I mean, think of it: the sheer power of mere mortals to take that depraved human heart and work in it the mighty miracle required to transform it into a heart that is willing to submit to God! And all that from people whose hearts are just as depraved! Wow, human beings really are something. I mean, with this amazing power to convert the unregenerate human heart, why do we need the Holy Spirit at all? (This is a rhetorical question -- we need the Holy Spirit desperately!)

It makes little sense for you to reply to CJ's distortion of my post. Nowhere in my posting will one find that I have denied the necessity of the Holy Spirit in the action of salvation. I simply I have noted that kindness and mercy make people receptive to hear what one has to say. My comments were made within the context of a lengthy and sometimes heated debate.

I stand by the St Francis quote- when necessary, use words. He never said never use words- he simply placed the first priority first.

That being said, how is it less "arrogant" to think words coming from a human mouth (ie, preaching) is any more effective than kindness extended to an enemy?

Hear me well: We are co-laborers with God. Ultimately, it is His power that does it all, but make no mistake- He speaks through human kindness.

Someone else speaks through cruelty- which often passes itself off as passion for truth.

 

[Mathetes]

Funny isn't it,..... God gives each man breath to live and receive Him as eternal life, but the majority pay no heed to this, they have no appreciation for this great mercy and grace of the Creator.

But OC would have us believe that human kindness and human love shown towards an unbeliever will do the job.

It truly stretches the imagination, doesn't it? Not to mention it actually is nothing more than a display of human arrogance over the Creator. I mean, think of it: the sheer power of mere mortals to take that depraved human heart and work in it the mighty miracle required to transform it into a heart that is willing to submit to God! And all that from people whose hearts are just as depraved! Wow, human beings really are something. I mean, with this amazing power to convert the unregenerate human heart, why do we need the Holy Spirit at all? (This is a rhetorical question -- we need the Holy Spirit desperately!)

It makes little sense for you to reply to CJ's distortion of my post. Nowhere in my posting will one find that I have denied the necessity of the Holy Spirit in the action of salvation.

What I was responding to was the truth behind CJ's criticism, i.e., there are people out there who hold to the view I mentioned. Whether you actually hold that view is really irrelevant.

I simply I have noted that kindness and mercy make people receptive to hear what one has to say. My comments were made within the context of a lengthy and sometimes heated debate.

They may make people more receptive to YOU, but they won't make people any more receptive to GOD or the gospel than if you were not to use kindness and mercy. I'm not advocating unfriendliness and coldness, so please don't misunderstand me. What I'm against is the idea that our acts of kindness can actually make a person receptive to the gospel message. They can't, and they never will be able to. If you think they can, you must think the human heart is not all that bad, requiring mere kindness to soften it up to the gospel message. The truth, however, is that the human heart, apart from the grace of God and the Holy Spirit, is fighting tooth and nail against the authority of God and will never, never, NEVER submit to God unless regenerated. Therefore, you either are arrogant enough to think that you can achieve something that only the Holy Spirit can do, OR you terribly underestimate the extent of human depravity and man's hostility toward God.

What all this ultimately boils down to is the simple question of how you view the natural man, i.e., what your doctrine of man is. If you hold to the premise that the natural man is not really all that bad and not completely fallen, then of course the logical conclusion to make is that all he/she needs is some kindness to make that already soft heart just a bit more receptive. On the other hand, if you hold to the premise that human nature is totally depraved -- fallen in mind, heart, and will -- and that there is no part of human nature left untainted by the fall, then the logical conclusion will be that nothing short of divine intervention and divine grace will change fallen man.

I stand by the St Francis quote- when necessary, use words. He never said never use words- he simply placed the first priority first.

Francis was dreadfully wrong. He may have been a godly man, but he was dead wrong on this. His saying allows for the possibility that someone could be saved apart from the word of God, making the verbal teaching/preaching of the gospel merely an option rather than a necessity. But the Bible never presents such a view of gospel preaching.

That being said, how is it less "arrogant" to think words coming from a human mouth (ie, preaching) is any more effective than kindness extended to an enemy?

Because those words are preaching the gospel of Christ, which is the power of God for salvation. Therefore, those words do not involve a mere human endeavor (act of kindness) done in human strength. To preach the gospel is to use the very method that God has ordained for evangelism. Not to preach it, however, is to neglect using a necessary, indispensable tool.

Hear me well: We are co-laborers with God. Ultimately, it is His power that does it all, but make no mistake- He speaks through human kindness.

Where does the Bible support this?

 

[Orthodox Christian]

Funny isn't it,..... God gives each man breath to live and receive Him as eternal life, but the majority pay no heed to this, they have no appreciation for this great mercy and grace of the Creator.

But OC would have us believe that human kindness and human love shown towards an unbeliever will do the job.

It truly stretches the imagination, doesn't it? Not to mention it actually is nothing more than a display of human arrogance over the Creator. I mean, think of it: the sheer power of mere mortals to take that depraved human heart and work in it the mighty miracle required to transform it into a heart that is willing to submit to God! And all that from people whose hearts are just as depraved! Wow, human beings really are something. I mean, with this amazing power to convert the unregenerate human heart, why do we need the Holy Spirit at all? (This is a rhetorical question -- we need the Holy Spirit desperately!)

It makes little sense for you to reply to CJ's distortion of my post. Nowhere in my posting will one find that I have denied the necessity of the Holy Spirit in the action of salvation.

What I was responding to was the truth behind CJ's criticism, i.e., there are people out there who hold to the view I mentioned. Whether you actually hold that view is really irrelevant.

It may be irrelevant to you, but since it has my name attached to it, it is relevant to me.
And -since you responded without delineating what was general and what was specific, the onus is on you to clarify.

I simply I have noted that kindness and mercy make people receptive to hear what one has to say. My comments were made within the context of a lengthy and sometimes heated debate.

They may make people more receptive to YOU, but they won't make people any more receptive to GOD or the gospel than if you were not to use kindness and mercy.

Nonsense. Unless they have an angelic herald, they are going to be hearing the gospel from you/me.
When they receive us in the Name of Christ, they receive Him- or have you forgotten Christ's own words?

"Let your light so shine before men that they might see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven."

"You are living epistles"

What of this surpasses your understanding?

I'm not advocating unfriendliness and coldness, so please don't misunderstand me. What I'm against is the idea that our acts of kindness can actually make a person receptive to the gospel message. They can't, and they never will be able to. If you think they can, you must think the human heart is not all that bad, requiring mere kindness to soften it up to the gospel message.

In point of fact, that is often the case. I do not share in your Augustinian/Calvinist view of the utter depravity of man.

The truth, however, is that the human heart, apart from the grace of God and the Holy Spirit, is fighting tooth and nail against the authority of God and will never, never, NEVER submit to God unless regenerated.

Since you're stumping for Calvin, where does prevenient grace fit in your scheme of kicking and screaming until the hour of awakening?

Are you suggesting that all people up to the moment of their metaoinia (repentance) are utterly in rebellion against God? If so, explain Zaccheus to me. What state was he when he was climbing the tree to see Jesus: utterly depraved, saved, or somewhere in between?

Therefore, you either are arrogant enough to think that you can achieve something that only the Holy Spirit can do, OR you terribly underestimate the extent of human depravity and man's hostility toward God.

The third option is that your opening premise was argle bargle, and I'm neither arrogant nor ignorant.

What all this ultimately boils down to is the simple question of how you view the natural man, i.e., what your doctrine of man is. If you hold to the premise that the natural man is not really all that bad and not completely fallen, then of course the logical conclusion to make is that all he/she needs is some kindness to make that already soft heart just a bit more receptive.

People who are not steeped in and hypnotized by Reformed theology can see for themselves that people are at various places. Some are utterly depraved, given over to depravity, as Paul said. Some are coming to their senses. Some, like the Centurion or the Syro-Phoenician woman, were looking for the Kingdom, and needed to see someone who was doing good works (Jesus). Others, like the Magi, were ernestly seeking God, and found Him.

Of course, in each of these cases, the grace of God was operating in their lives, moving them towards Him. Like people in a long, dark passage, they needed light to guide them where they fully intended to go.

Others despise the light.

No, the idea that everyone except the people in your pews is fighting God is demonstrably wrong.

On the other hand, if you hold to the premise that human nature is totally depraved -- fallen in mind, heart, and will -- and that there is no part of human nature left untainted by the fall, then the logical conclusion will be that nothing short of divine intervention and divine grace will change fallen man.

I don't hold that position, and find it ridiculous in the extreme.

I stand by the St Francis quote- when necessary, use words. He never said never use words- he simply placed the first priority first.

Francis was dreadfully wrong. He may have been a godly man, but he was dead wrong on this. His saying allows for the possibility that someone could be saved apart from the word of God, making the verbal teaching/preaching of the gospel merely an option rather than a necessity. But the Bible never presents such a view of gospel preaching.

You still think preaching is words and faith is intellectual belief. Actions are words. In point of fact the bible in fact demonstrates this clearly- regarding the wife of an unbelieving husband.

1 Peter 3:1
In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any {of them} are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives,

That being said, how is it less "arrogant" to think words coming from a human mouth (ie, preaching) is any more effective than kindness extended to an enemy?

Because those words are preaching the gospel of Christ, which is the power of God for salvation. Therefore, those words do not involve a mere human endeavor (act of kindness) done in human strength. To preach the gospel is to use the very method that God has ordained for evangelism. Not to preach it, however, is to neglect using a necessary, indispensable tool.

You are casting strawmen into this, left and right. Asd I stated before- I did not say that preaching was unnecessary; I said it should be done when necessary.

Hear me well: We are co-laborers with God. Ultimately, it is His power that does it all, but make no mistake- He speaks through human kindness.

Where does the Bible support this?

You're kidding, right?

 

[Mathetes]

Orthodox Christian,

I'm sure you have some strong points to make, but I really see no point in discussing this with you unless you come to grips with the reasons why you responded the way you have. Obviously from your choice of words and your tone, what I have said rubs you the wrong way. What I think would be more profitable for you to do at this time is to look deep inside yourself and honestly answer the question, "Why does the doctrine of total depravity disturb me so much?" I don't urge you to do this because you disagree with me; rather I ask you to do this because it seems strongly evident that total depravity strikes at a sensitive chord deep within you, which leads me to believe that all the debating in the world won't help you if the issue is something spiritual inside of you that I have no power over.

However, if you feel that you can continue this discussion without resorting to false insinuations (I'm not even going to take the time to point them out to you: If you aren't aware of them, all the more reason for you to step back from this discussion and examine yourself), then I would be happy to begin a lengthy dialogue on this issue. (Believe me, I have done so many times in the past.)

Mathetes

 

[Orthodox Christian]

Orthodox Christian,

I'm sure you have some strong points to make, but I really see no point in discussing this with you unless you come to grips with the reasons why you responded the way you have. Obviously from your choice of words and your tone, what I have said rubs you the wrong way.
What I think would be more profitable for you to do at this time is to look deep inside yourself and honestly answer the question, "Why does the doctrine of total depravity disturb me so much?" I don't urge you to do this because you disagree with me; rather I ask you to do this because it seems strongly evident that total depravity strikes at a sensitive chord deep within you, which leads me to believe that all the debating in the world won't help you if the issue is something spiritual inside of you that I have no power over.

However, if you feel that you can continue this discussion without resorting to false insinuations (I'm not even going to take the time to point them out to you: If you aren't aware of them, all the more reason for you to step back from this discussion and examine yourself), then I would be happy to begin a lengthy dialogue on this issue. (Believe me, I have done so many times in the past.)

Mathetes

Thanks for your response. I have the same response to the doctrine of utter depravity as I do to the doctrine of Arius as I do to modalism as I do to cessationism etc- heresy is heresy.

I'm quite certain that taking exception to your Reformed doctrine is not an indicator that there is something spiritually wrong in me. Let's just not go there, k?

It would be inappropriate to hold a full blown discussion of 'utter depravity' on this thread, as it would be a diversion from the topic.

 

[cj]

It makes little sense for you to reply to CJ's distortion of my post.

No OC, I distorted nothing of your speaking, only laid it out in plain sight for all to see. Something I will continue to do no matter how you attempt to color it.

Nowhere in my posting will one find that I have denied the necessity of the Holy Spirit in the action of salvation. I simply I have noted that kindness and mercy make people receptive to hear what one has to say. My comments were made within the context of a lengthy and sometimes heated debate.

".... kindness and mercy make people receptive to hear what one has to say."

We heard you OC, but better we hear the truth of the bible and stick to it.

When God demolished Job family and holdings, in the eyes of "people" was God expressing kindness and mercy?

And Jesus, in the eyes of "people" was He expressing kindness and mercy when He came to men?


You are so desperate to add your humanity to God's work that it causes you to speak half-truths, calling them truth.

I stand by the St Francis quote- when necessary, use words. He never said never use words- he simply placed the first priority first.

A believer's living and being is simply to be normal, a living and being that declares the full gospel of God to those who are looking on.

Tell me, where is the mercy and kindness in the command to not throw your pearls before swine?

That being said, how is it less "arrogant" to think words coming from a human mouth (ie, preaching) is any more effective than kindness extended to an enemy?

The condition of the heart is what counts OC, the source of one's motivation.

Hear me well: We are co-laborers with God. Ultimately, it is His power that does it all, but make no mistake- He speaks through human kindness.

Jesus told us that God can speak through stones on the side of the road.

God speaks OC, through whatever He decides in His wisdom is what He needs to speak through. Expressing human kindness does not equate to one co-laboring with God, this is the lie of the enemy, taugh by apostate institutions.

High human morals means nothing if not out of a divine source.

Someone else speaks through cruelty- which often passes itself off as passion for truth.

Another pathetic attempt to slander,..... meaningless tripe on your part.


In love,
cj

 

[Orthodox Christian]

It makes little sense for you to reply to CJ's distortion of my post.

No OC, I distorted nothing of your speaking, only laid it out in plain sight for all to see. Something I will continue to do no matter how you attempt to color it.

I remind you of your words

But OC would have us believe that human kindness and human love shown towards an unbeliever will do the job.

That's distortion of what I said, pure and simple. As I stated below...

Nowhere in my posting will one find that I have denied the necessity of the Holy Spirit in the action of salvation. I simply I have noted that kindness and mercy make people receptive to hear what one has to say. My comments were made within the context of a lengthy and sometimes heated debate.

And there you have it.

".... kindness and mercy make people receptive to hear what one has to say."

We heard you OC, but better we hear the truth of the bible and stick to it.

When God demolished Job family and holdings, in the eyes of "people" was God expressing kindness and mercy?

If you are going to use God's actions to justify your own, you may burn people with fire for blasphemy, dash their children into the rocks for belonging to a certain tribe,and just about anything else that you desire.

But I remind you that you are not God, only a spokesperson for God under His authority. Under his commandments.

And Jesus, in the eyes of "people" was He expressing kindness and mercy when He came to men?

Abundantly. His harsh words were reserved for the Pharisees.

You are so desperate to add your humanity to God's work that it causes you to speak half-truths, calling them truth.

Says the one who whitewashes self-righteousness and angry words and calls it gospel

Hear me well: We are co-laborers with God. Ultimately, it is His power that does it all, but make no mistake- He speaks through human kindness.

Jesus told us that God can speak through stones on the side of the road.

God speaks OC, through whatever He decides in His wisdom is what He needs to speak through. Expressing human kindness does not equate to one co-laboring with God, this is the lie of the enemy, taugh by apostate institutions.

High human morals means nothing if not out of a divine source.

Agreed- but I have not advocated for doing good works apart from grace, so this is irrelevant (a strawman, actually).

Someone else speaks through cruelty- which often passes itself off as passion for truth.

Another pathetic attempt to slander,..... meaningless tripe on your part.

The someone else I speak of is Satan. James tells us that the tongue is a restless evil, and that by it we both bless and curse. This is not slander on my part- this is scripture.


In love,
cj[/quote]

 

[cj]

In point of fact, that is often the case. I do not share in your Augustinian/Calvinist view of the utter depravity of man.

Then you neither shar God's view. Which is expressed in your speaking.

Are you suggesting that all people up to the moment of their metaoinia (repentance) are utterly in rebellion against God? If so, explain Zaccheus to me. What state was he when he was climbing the tree to see Jesus: utterly depraved, saved, or somewhere in between?

Really, is that the best you can come with,..... asking for an explanation of the Jew, Zaccheus?

Luke 18:35,........ "And as He drew near to Jericho,"

Luke 19:1....... "And He entered and was passing through Jericho."

Seeing the spiritual significance within the speaking sequence of the scriptures is essential to understanding the truth being revealed.

Before Zaccheus, Jesus was confronted by a blind man, to whom He gave sight; a sinner in darkness needs to receive sight that he may realize that he needs salvation (Acts 26:18).

What is covered in 18:35--19:10 shows how one can fulfill the conditions revealed in vv. 9-30 for entering the kingdom of God  first, one must receive sight from the Savior (vv. 35-43), and then one must receive the Savior as the dynamic salvation (19:1-10). In this way the blind man could be like the repenting tax collector and the unoccupied little child and receive the Savior, and Zaccheus could renounce all his riches and follow Him. The way to enter into all spiritual things is to receive sight from the Lord and to receive the Lord Himself.


The bible tells us that no man is righteous. And there is no such thing as semi-righteous, although I understand you would love there to be such a thing so that you could claim some self-worth.

........ Some are utterly depraved, given over to depravity, as Paul said. Some are coming to their senses. Some, like the Centurion or the Syro-Phoenician woman, were looking for the Kingdom, and needed to see someone who was doing good works (Jesus). Others, like the Magi, were ernestly seeking God, and found Him.

"Others, like the Magi, were ernestly seeking God, and found Him."

OC,...... confusion reigns as usual in your speaking.

Tell me, how do you think these wise men came to see the star that they eventually followed?

How would they have known to declare "Where is He who has been born King of the Jews?........ For we saw His star at its rising and have come to worship Him."

Maybe as a result of the reality contained in this OT verse perhaps....

Daniel  2 : 48

"Then the king made Daniel great and gave many great gifts to him; ......and he made him ruler over the whole province of Babylon and chief of the prefects over all the wise men of Babylon."



Good, sound ministry OC. Something that is not found within the walls of an apostate institution.

.Of course, in each of these cases, the grace of God was operating in their lives, moving them towards Him. Like people in a long, dark passage, they needed light to guide them where they fully intended to go.

Of course,.... an Christ Himself is light. And He is also grace. And yes, He is also God.

What you describe above is the way of a called person.

Others despise the light.

All fallen men dispise light, and all men are fallen.

Praise God for His great mercy and grace.

.No, the idea that everyone except the people in your pews is fighting God is demonstrably wrong.

"your pews" is not relevant. It is what the bible declares,.... all are against God.

You want to make a differentiation between your view of the outward manifestation of this. But you are once more taking the way of men, which is to say, the way of blindness and scriptural ignorance.

I don't hold that position, and find it ridiculous in the extreme.

And this is why you continue in darkness.

At the beginning of Genesis we can find man's complete fall in four distinct ways, from his spirit, through his conscience, into his mind, and then to his flesh; at which point God brought in the flood. Yet the same degradation came in again.

For OC to make any claim to some possessing a lesser level of fallen condition is for him to expose his ignorance of who God's enemy is and what God's enemy is capable of and will do against men.

Satan is a murderer, and man has nothing in his natural self with which to defend himself against this murderer.

Yet OC claims otherwise, thus speaking in a contrary way to God's word.

In love,
cj

 

[thessalonian]

Were all the popes prior to 1054 ad infallible confessing that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father?

Yes.

How can the pope before 1054ad be infallible confessing one God then be infallible confessing a god that is totally different than the one previously?

Find me one that says that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son? ONE! If I say that you can speak, is it a contradiction that I can speak as well? This is silly.

Seems the Popes prior to 1054 ad were sorely mistaken and could not have been infallible confessing the error of procession from the Father alone.

Your sounding like a protestant now. Can you tell me where in the bible it says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from "the Father alone"? Can you show me where any Pope before 1054 said that the Holy Spirit Proceeds from "the Father alone". Can you show me a decree of a council that says the Holy Spirit proceeds from "the Father alone".

Orthodoxy[/quote]

 

[Mathetes]

Thanks for your response. I have the same response to the doctrine of utter depravity as I do to the doctrine of Arius as I do to modalism as I do to cessationism etc- heresy is heresy.

Then let's open the Bible together and explore this issue to see just exactly what is the heresy and what is not, shall we?

And, btw, I did detect a bit of snip in your post that really cannot be explained merely by the fact that you hate heresy. I'm willing to explore this issue with you, but please keep this in mind for the future.

I'm quite certain that taking exception to your Reformed doctrine is not an indicator that there is something spiritually wrong in me. Let's just not go there, k?

I knew you were going to come back with this; that's why in my post I said:

"I don't urge you to do this because you disagree with me; rather I ask you to do this because it seems strongly evident that total depravity strikes at a sensitive chord deep within you, which leads me to believe that all the debating in the world won't help you if the issue is something spiritual inside of you that I have no power over."

My suspicions in this matter have nothing whatsoever to do with your disagreements with Reformed theology.

It would be inappropriate to hold a full blown discussion of 'utter depravity' on this thread, as it would be a diversion from the topic.

Then I would be happy to start another thread or correspond privately via email. Let me know what you'd like. I look forward to an extensive, fruitful discussion.

 

[Orthodox Christian]

Thanks for your response. I have the same response to the doctrine of utter depravity as I do to the doctrine of Arius as I do to modalism as I do to cessationism etc- heresy is heresy.

Then let's open the Bible together and explore this issue to see just exactly what is the heresy and what is not, shall we?

And, btw, I did detect a bit of snip in your post that really cannot be explained merely by the fact that you hate heresy. I'm willing to explore this issue with you, but please keep this in mind for the future.

'Snip,' as you refer to it, is in the eye of the beholder. From where I stand, I've detected snip and snap in your posts, but this is of no consequence. I am sorry if you have taken my terse and blunt statements as vitriolic in nature. I assure you, I hold no animosity towards you.

I'm quite certain that taking exception to your Reformed doctrine is not an indicator that there is something spiritually wrong in me. Let's just not go there, k?

I knew you were going to come back with this; that's why in my post I said:

"I don't urge you to do this because you disagree with me; rather I ask you to do this because it seems strongly evident that total depravity strikes at a sensitive chord deep within you, which leads me to believe that all the debating in the world won't help you if the issue is something spiritual inside of you that I have no power over."

My suspicions in this matter have nothing whatsoever to do with your disagreements with Reformed theology.

Then feel free to keep such suspicions to yourself when the topic is, in fact, Reformed theology.

And let's have no further armchair psychology.

It would be inappropriate to hold a full blown discussion of 'utter depravity' on this thread, as it would be a diversion from the topic.

Then I would be happy to start another thread or correspond privately via email. Let me know what you'd like. I look forward to an extensive, fruitful discussion.

Feel free to launch a discussion over in theology- I will join on condition that further attempted inroads to my affective state are not attempted in the process.
Thx
James

 

[Mathetes]

Feel free to launch a discussion over in theology- I will join on condition that further attempted inroads to my affective state are not attempted in the process.
Thx
James

I don't know, James. Based on your response, I suspect you're still in denial, so I'll think about it.

 

[Orthodox Christian]

Feel free to launch a discussion over in theology- I will join on condition that further attempted inroads to my affective state are not attempted in the process.
Thx
James

I don't know, James. Based on your response, I suspect you're still in denial, so I'll think about it.

Whether you intended that to be funny or not, it was...the ironic sort of funny. Well done.