The REAL number one problem in Christian theology

[Brother Lawrence]

A more honest admittance to me is that we all factually see 'in part only.'
And that's all fine.

And some have factual parts while others have non-factual parts. Throwing out the baby with the bathwater because we see through a glass darkly defeats the purpose of God's own Word and Church.

All seek perfect doctrine, and rightfully so, but an application of truth should come before any of same.

Truth is simply that which corresponds to reality.

The myriad of divisions that have taken hold within all churches are exactly built on this ground. 'Some have it right.' That being each individual. All think they have it right and none admit partial sight. There seems to be a slight flaw in logic in the entirety of the matters.

All it takes is for one man to utter some non-Biblical statement and for others to agree - take the case of C.T. Russell, who has deluded thousands by claiming to be Christian while denying Christ, or John Darby, whose "Left Behind" prophecies persist, even after having been proven wrong countless times.

Insert whoever you want. All of the determinants had sin, and all were partial sighted and NONE of them admitted that fact when it came to their 'hardlines.' Had any of them done so, I may have listened to more of what they had to say. So as in any 'handler' of the Word, some have some right and ALL have some wrong.

If you want to talk about "facts", I would like something besides a nebulous claim of "sin", because some of the most sinful characters in scripture knew more about God than all of the others.

I admit to these facts. Evil is present with me and I have sin indwelling my flesh, which same actions in thought, word or deed is of the devil. Therefore I acknowledge my personal subjectivity, and I see so in everyone else as well regardless of their personal claims to the contrary.

Bully for you. I have learned from my mistakes and my sins, and that is a fact. Plus, I have lived long enough to have committed lots of them.

These facts alone casts a pall upon us all. No man stands in complete LIGHT. This is an absolute, seen in partial vision.

They don't need to.

And that depends entirely on 'who' you ask. You can substitute fish, pork, Saturday or Sunday and a different response will come from every sect who has made their stands on all of these matters, most of which result in condemnations to others who do not so adhere.

Yes, and many or all of them will be wrong. We have history books where we can discover what Christ, the disciples, and the church has always taught. We don't need to guess, and we don't need to fall for foolish claims.

Take God at His Word. We all have our faults. That is the ground of sound doctrines. Absolute adherents of any fashion, when it comes to devouring others, have simply had their own hearts revealed by the scriptures and proved the fault lies within them. Yet none of them see it, standing instead on their personally subjective Absolute so called Truths.

When people claim to be taking God at His word, then utter something that is against His word, this cannot stand.

 

[smaller]

And some have factual parts while others have non-factual parts. Throwing out the baby with the bathwater because we see through a glass darkly defeats the purpose of God's own Word and Church.

You missed the point entirely. If we all see in part, that eliminates perfect understandings as a logical possibility.

I don't imagine the Pope will be making this truthful confession on his lips while simultaneously speaking ex-Cathedra:

Romans 7:21
I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.

For some reason the Popes seem to totally escape this fact. They cannot speak this truth because their man made doctrines prohibits them from speaking this truth.

Anyone is welcome to overlook this fact. When they do, they are not 'in Truth' at least on this particular matter. It is also a reason why we all see only 'in part.'

Truth is simply that which corresponds to reality.

Truth is Jesus Christ who encompasses 'all things.' Corresponding God to any 'thing' that He created doesn't fit. There is only One Truth and many sub truths and simultaneous and seemingly conflicting sub truths i.e. what can be true in one application can be opposite in another application.

All it takes is for one man to utter some non-Biblical statement and for others to agree - take the case of C.T. Russell, who has deluded thousands by claiming to be Christian while denying Christ, or John Darby, whose "Left Behind" prophecies persist, even after having been proven wrong countless times.

The world is full of christian charlatans and has been for quite along time. Some are more charlatan than others. But all are at least a little charlatan because of the presence of sin in all.

If you want to talk about "facts", I would like something besides a nebulous claim of "sin", because some of the most sinful characters in scripture knew more about God than all of the others.

I don't doubt that one bit.

Bully for you. I have learned from my mistakes and my sins, and that is a fact. Plus, I have lived long enough to have committed lots of them.

Welcome to the fact club. Bought any absolution salve lately?

Yes, and many or all of them will be wrong. We have history books where we can discover what Christ, the disciples, and the church has always taught. We don't need to guess, and we don't need to fall for foolish claims.

The majority of what they all taught came right out of the O.T. which existed long before the Christian church.

When people claim to be taking God at His word, then utter something that is against His word, this cannot stand.

True again.

enjoy!

s

 

[childeye]

The reasoned facts for me Free, is that I acknowledge seeing only in part. That is a reasoned piece of humble pie that remains ever present. I will be gaining no 'absolute Truth' in that condition. That to me is a reasoned fact. I acknowledge the fact, and the fact is absolute, that we all see only in part.

Do you consider that reasonable? Do you consider that absolute? I do.

So, as it applies to this particular subject, Trinity, I conclude with the determinations, also acknowledging as the Trinity determiners prior, the very big caveat of Mystery. Yes, there is a box named Trinity, but within that box resides Eternal Mystery. I nod as much as possible to the latter fact.

There does exist another fact in making claims of Absolute determinations for the 'religious' mind. That fact is 'a trap.' One that sets a man on his high horse of eternal condemnation. I refuse to ride that beast within. That is what my conscience has advised me. Some understandings I will bow to. Some I cannot, as they foster megalomania within. I am not that bold nor do I want to be. It is a trap set in the scriptures to show us what is within us.

There are very secure ways to approach these matters. So, I would ask a simpler question. Which is more important? To rigidly adhere to every jot and tittle of Triune understandings, or to walk in love to our fellow believers? To me one can take a greater or lesser position of one or the other. Stand too hard on Triune and the cost of love, and one is not only trapped, but a loser in the battle to love. That is what my heart has been advised by The Spirit. My heart is more important than the decent into personal condemnation of others. No one sees good enough to 'do that' imho. Particularly not so as partial seers of Mystery.
Orthodoxy makes that claim, but look at where it has taken them. Eastern Orthodoxy openly condemns heresy upon The RCC adherents, and vice versa, both of them standing on a dispute over 4 little words of the RCC determination, 'and of [or from] the Son' aka the filioque. Did orthodoxy do themselves any inner favors by landing there? I think NOT. In fact I believe it is downright bizarre. Two great institutions of Christianity, openly flailing each others for centuries over 4 little words. I say they have merely brought internal sickness upon their hearts, and a very large dose of 'self' justifications. Over 4 little words.

In that, their 'Absolute Truth' of this matter has turned them into WOLVES imho. They seek to devour each others over 4 little words, and that is a praxy that I can not tolerate for myself. In that practice, the lair of the wolf takes hold within. And one becomes a slave of the wolf, all the while claiming the bleat of a sheep.

enjoy!

s

I see semantics dividing us all. To follow the love in your heart could be called doctrine, so to argue whether one should follow the heart or follow doctrine would be arguing semantics in that case. It is true however that what a person believes to be true and that is to say what their image of God is, will dictate how one loves or should I say can pervert one's love. The second commandment love your neighbor as yourself is fullproof against semantics and cannot be twisted by Satan since it contains both subjective and objective points of view held together at once. Yet this fullproof doctrine directs love through reasoning and so it is doctrine.

If one however has a pure and Holy Image of God then they will do both the number one and two commandments without ever having to hear them. Voicing these doctrines does help however because it gives strength to one's convictions of faith in this Holy Image. We are supposed to be here to reassure one another in a mutual faith and yet we gather and tear each other down with doctrinal disputes over semantics. May God humble us all and by His Spirit grant that we see through the semantics and recognize how we are being played.

 

[Brother Lawrence]

You missed the point entirely. If we all see in part, that eliminates perfect understandings as a logical possibility.

Nope, there are some things that are clearly known and clearly understood. The 10 commandments are an example. And how do we know these laws are true?

I don't imagine the Pope will be making this truthful confession on his lips while simultaneously speaking ex-Cathedra:

Romans 7:21
I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.

For some reason the Popes seem to totally escape this fact. They cannot speak this truth because their man made doctrines prohibits them from speaking this truth.

I have heard the Pope ask for prayer for his weaknesses. You, on the other hand, speak your own man made doctrines but expect to be taken seriously.

The world is full of christian charlatans and has been for quite along time. Some are more charlatan than others. But all are at least a little charlatan because of the presence of sin in all.

My point was that people who deny Christ are not Christian, in the case of C.T. Russell - you can't blame Christianity for their lies.

Welcome to the fact club. Bought any absolution salve lately?

My Bishop sent me some.

The majority of what they all taught came right out of the O.T. which existed long before the Christian church.

Are you trying to say the Christian church has no credibility?

 

[jasoncran]

lol, he calls the ot yet that very name given or rather a division is from the heretic marconi

if you read the tanakh, you will find what christ says and paul taught and john sees will line perfectly up! if my brother doestn get my grandma's tanakh i will ask for it. i have wippped out my bible and the tanakh to compare. both are in kjv english and match.

but i really dont need the thing either as its contained our bible.

 

[smaller]

Nope, there are some things that are clearly known and clearly understood. The 10 commandments are an example. And how do we know these laws are true?

Most believers accept that every Word of God is True. How that truth is perceived is another story because of the partial sight of all.

I have heard the Pope ask for prayer for his weaknesses. You, on the other hand, speak your own man made doctrines but expect to be taken seriously.

The observation put in play was that evil was present with Paul when he would do good. Does the Pope sit in the chair of St. Peter with that truth on his lips? Not that I've ever heard. Please elaborate if you want to.

My point was that people who deny Christ are not Christian, in the case of C.T. Russell - you can't blame Christianity for their lies.

Never have. All unbelievers are blinded in mind by the 'god of this world.' Logic dictates they are not the cause of their blindness. I would go on to say that their speakings are speakings of the 'god of this world' in operation in them, shown by the deeds of their thoughts, words or actions.

Are you trying to say the Christian church has no credibility?

Not at all. All 'sects' have some truth. None have total truth because of partial sight and evil present within all. It's a scriptural fact that is largely dodged in most sects.

s

 

[Brother Lawrence]

lol, he calls the ot yet that very name given or rather a division is from the heretic marconi

if you read the tanakh, you will find what christ says and paul taught and john sees will line perfectly up! if my brother doestn get my grandma's tanakh i will ask for it. i have wippped out my bible and the tanakh to compare. both are in kjv english and match.

but i really dont need the thing either as its contained our bible.

I will never understand the people who think that Jesus started a new religion. Christianity is Judaism for the world.

 

[Brother Lawrence]

None have total truth because of partial sight and evil present within all. It's a scriptural fact that is largely dodged in most sects.

Chapter and verse?

 

[smaller]

Chapter and verse?

1 Corinthians 13:12
For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part;

No believer or conglomeration of same changes the above.

Romans 7:21
I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.

No one is exempt from the above.

 

[Brother Lawrence]

1 Corinthians 13:12
For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part;

No believer or conglomeration of same changes the above.

Romans 7:21
I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.

No one is exempt from the above.

The context of the 1 Corinthians 13 verse is about spiritual gifts. It says nothing about the teachings of the church being defective.

It's the same with the Romans verse: the context is about the law and sin, it has nothing to do with Paul's teachings or the church's teachings being unreliable because Paul struggles with sin.

Besides, if what Paul is teachings are unreliable because of his sin and partial blindness, you have logically sawn off the limb you are sitting on if you want to quote him as your proof.

 

[smaller]

The context of the 1 Corinthians 13 verse is about spiritual gifts. It says nothing about the teachings of the church being defective.

If the teachings of the church(s) are accurate, then all the members are factually defective or weakened by the presence of sin and evil. I accept that. In accepting that one might consider that to be a fulcrum of understanding, and thereby subjugation to Christ as Thee Measure rather than the virtual myriad of constructs that have sprung up, all of which have 'some' factual conclusions.

Many within the RCC for example do not consider those believers in knowing disagreement to be christians. You appear to perhaps reflect those views. And there are even hardline breakaways from within the RCC who stand on the old school determinations. Are they christians?

It's the same with the Romans verse: the context is about the law and sin, it has nothing to do with Paul's teachings or the church's teachings being unreliable because Paul struggles with sin.

Besides, if what Paul is teachings are unreliable because of his sin and partial blindness, you have logically sawn off the limb you are sitting on if you want to quote him as your proof.

An admittedly weak man made those presentations. I consider them quite factual regardless of the admitted frailties that brings. The essence of the need of 'all people' resides upon those facts. To extend beyond those facts to, oh, let's say infallibility would seem to contradict the basis for facts of need.

s

 

[jasoncran]

I will never understand the people who think that Jesus started a new religion. Christianity is Judaism for the world.

i fully understand what christianity is from that regard. i cant explain it but the bible is judiasm, but modern judaism that reject christ isnt judaism at all but now a blinded religion. sorry they are close but being close to the truth doesnt make you a saint. meaning God doesnt say. oh well you know me the father but reject the son , and that's ok to the jew who heard the gospel from the christian, and yet tells the gentile who never heard the gospel and is a hindu, sorry you cant come in.

Jesus is the name above all names whereby we are saved..trust me it hurts for me to think that my own blood, jews and devout orthodox at that are in hell. i dont know and i leave it at that. they had a chance to repent and its tween them and God.

last week we laid my grandmother to rest. theres so much blindness on them its sad. but alas that was told to be.trust me when you read the mourners kaddish and what the candle is for and then read up on what sheol is and how that points to the messiah. its real sad.

 

[childeye]

I will never understand the people who think that Jesus started a new religion. Christianity is Judaism for the world.

It could be said Jesus came to destroy religion depending on how you define the word religion. Semantics. It is written that the Older will serve the younger.

 

[jasoncran]

It could be said Jesus came to destroy religion depending on how you define the word religion. Semantics. It is written that the Older will serve the younger.

what does esau have to do with this? sigh, christianity is judaism for all men mainly the gentiles. judaism of lore was primarily for the seed of isreal though gentiles did convert, ie rachab,naomi and also urijah the hittite.

 

[childeye]

what does esau have to do with this? sigh, christianity is judaism for all men mainly the gentiles. judaism of lore was primarily for the seed of isreal though gentiles did convert, ie rachab,naomi and also urijah the hittite.

Esau is the Older brother as in a type for the Old and New Testament. Forgive me since I have not the time to elaborate. Suffice it to say that Judaism is a part of Christianity not the other way around.

 

[jasoncran]

Esau is the Older brother as in a type for the Old and New Testament. Forgive me since I have not the time to elaborate. Suffice it to say that Judaism is a part of Christianity not the other way around.

sigh. no christianity is judiasm for the gentile. all visions of God were of the messiah. no man hath seen god the father at any time. moses didnt see the father nor did isaih and the prophets.

"for if ye knew moses ye would know me for he spoke of me" christianity is a contuation of judaism

one of the names of our lord is the good shepard, that name comes from the word el-shaddai which is linked by numerology in the talmud from oral traditions prior to christ to malachi YHWH. angel unto the lord a christophone. therefore if you gentiles are grafted into a most jewish faith.

the name jesus is greek for yeshua(yahweh saves) so how can it be that the hebrews had it last?

 

[Brother Lawrence]

If the teachings of the church(s) are accurate, then all the members are factually defective or weakened by the presence of sin and evil.

Well, that's your opinion and you have yet to prove it.

I accept that. In accepting that one might consider that to be a fulcrum of understanding, and thereby subjugation to Christ as Thee Measure rather than the virtual myriad of constructs that have sprung up, all of which have 'some' factual conclusions.

You are going to have to be more specific.

Many within the RCC for example do not consider those believers in knowing disagreement to be christians. You appear to perhaps reflect those views. And there are even hardline breakaways from within the RCC who stand on the old school determinations. Are they christians?

And many on this forum appear to dismiss Catholics as non-Christians, too. You appear to be one of those.

I believe that if you deny Christ, you are not Christian. It has nothing to do with disagreement.

An admittedly weak man made those presentations. I consider them quite factual regardless of the admitted frailties that brings.

So you pick and choose what you will believe. Gotcha.

I think we are done here.

 

[Brother Lawrence]

It could be said Jesus came to destroy religion depending on how you define the word religion. Semantics. It is written that the Older will serve the younger.

No, Jesus himself said that he came to fulfill the law, not to abolish it. Jason is right.

 

[smaller]

Well, that's your opinion and you have yet to prove it.

My opinion that mankind are sinners and that sin is evil???

And many on this forum appear to dismiss Catholics as non-Christians, too. You appear to be one of those.

I've never made such a statement. And you provided no answer. From the heading of your thread and the beliefs of 'some' RCC members, other christians are NOT christians if outside the RCC. So, your response was missing.

I believe that if you deny Christ, you are not Christian. It has nothing to do with disagreement.

The RCC version? That's part of the problem. The RCC says that we must accept every jot and tittle of their determinations of many matters, not the simple acceptance of Christ into our hearts, but their layered on determinations, otherwise, if we knowingly, publically and knowing of the penalty (heresy) disagree, then we are not believers, period.

I am in knowing, willing, knowledgeable disagreement with many RCC determinations. Many. Infallibility being high on the list of impossibilities.

So you pick and choose what you will believe. Gotcha.

I think we are done here.

yeah, it don't take too long when rubbing on infallibility. You apparently equate the Pope to God. I don't. Sorry. He's a sinner just like everyone else. The evil present with him didn't disappear with the magical and formula-matic incantations and no matter how fancy the robes, hats, staffs or support systems.

s

 

[Brother Lawrence]

Son, I don't know who you think you are talking to, but I am not a Roman Catholic and I never have been. I think I made my meaning clear: if you deny that Christ is who he says he is, you are not Christian. It has nothing to do with my beliefs, the RCC's beliefs, or anybody on this forum's beliefs. It has to do with common sense. We are not following cleverly devised stories, we are following the Christ Himself.

You keep trying to make this about the church in Rome or about me, and it's not about me.

And I don't know where you got that "equating the Pope to God" thing.

You need to let go of some of your preconceived notions. God will not be impressed that you dislike the Pope or the church.