Truth!

[childeye]

Mat 22:36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
Mat 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
Mat 22:38 This is the first and great commandment.
Mat 22:39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.


Why is this one simple law so hard to follow. Isn't this all we truly need to be displaying if we truly have the love of Christ in us!!! Former Christian and thelords I 2 you for what you have said as we are the Lords and why do we put the title Christian to our name if we can not understand what the love of Christ is.

The Bible (basic instruction before leaving earth) is our instruction manual on how to be Christ like in all our mannerism to allow the love of Christ shine through us even more so when we are persecuted. America is spoiled and when it comes to laying our own lives down through persecutions as we see in other countries will our last words be that of the love of Christ or words of hate for our enemies.

I was taught that these simple rules shown above are carried out by the Spirit of God in a man, even as God is the Light of man. I was taught that the way we break the greatest commandment of Love God with all your heart mind and soul, is to take credit for that Spirit of Godly Love in accounting it's existence in us to our own volition, when in fact the volition itself must first be Godly, to receive what is Godly. Jesus said this when he said, he who is of God hears God's words.

This is how Jesus divides, as far as it has been given me to see.

 

[theLords]

Mat 22:36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
Mat 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
Mat 22:38 This is the first and great commandment.
Mat 22:39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.


Why is this one simple law so hard to follow. Isn't this all we truly need to be displaying if we truly have the love of Christ in us!!! Former Christian and thelords I 2 you for what you have said as we are the Lords and why do we put the title Christian to our name if we can not understand what the love of Christ is.

The Bible (basic instruction before leaving earth) is our instruction manual on how to be Christ like in all our mannerism to allow the love of Christ shine through us even more so when we are persecuted. America is spoiled and when it comes to laying our own lives down through persecutions as we see in other countries will our last words be that of the love of Christ or words of hate for our enemies.

FHG, the way I see it is, the Lord told us to love our neighbor as ourself, and we have many angry, hateful, unloving Christians, right? So it must mean, that we have very many Christians who hate themselves. When I see it that way, I understand, and grieve instead of getting angry. We have a broken, broken Church, and extremely wounded Christians and ex-Christians. But, what I try to keep in mind is that each sin has a brokenness behind it. Those who display the sin of pride, have a root of insecurity behind them. Those who display the sin of anger, have a root of depression behind them. It's why forgiveness is so powerful.

We, as believers, need to remember that Christ's kindness brought us to repentance and His kindness through us will lead others to repentance as well.

Like I've said, I've done my fair share of being the problem, but I hope I have the chance to do more than my fair share of healing the problem as well.

There is hope of us, not because of ourselves, but because of the goodness of who the Lord is.

 

[jasoncran]

for the record as i inquired the jews dont acknowlegde any teaching from the Lord. he is as to them as mohammad is to us.

 

[Queequeg's Travels]

Where do Christians unite! I am sorry to say we are a sorry bunch when it comes to being united in Christ. I'll explain with an example. I believe we need to be vigilant in accepting how the word of God is teached. Some of us might be babes in Christ and some mature, but we all need to discern the multitude of Christian litrature and messages out there. I wont go into scripture to emphasize this, we know that much is true. I appreciate the discernment of people like Dave Hunt, John Piper, John macArthur etc. Yet Dave Hunt written books against Calvanistic teachings and the calvanistic teachers and preachers attack the other side. WHY? Our unity should be in Christ. The fundermentals of both sides have their basis in the simple TRUTH of the Gospel. As Christians we are supposed to have the SAME Holy Spirit within us yet our earthly pride cacoons us into hard headed thinking, disobeying Jesus teaching to us. Again I have to ask why? Does anyone think that Christ is going to be more concerned with this or maybe he just wants us to live for him, to display his character in everything we do and to love (an action word) one another.
YES we must expose teachining and teachers that manipulate the Gospel to the benefit of a wordly experience. YES we must discern all teaching and ensure it expresses the word of God, and expose it if its not. BUT our basic belief in the TRUTH, THE GOSPEL should shine UNITY IN CHRIST.

I agree... the early Church seemed to have many issues, but they remained one body. When Jesus addresses the 7 churches in revelations, they are known by their location not their position. No matter what we disagree on, it is or separation that has silenced Gods voice in our culture. Read Jesus prayer at the last supper, our unity was Christ's will for us. It was the positions that Jesus condemned in rev.

 

[Former Christian]

TheLords

“Jesus said, "I am the Truth." Truth is not a teaching. Truth is a Person, and if you have that Person, you have that Truth and in that Person there's always unity. But, if we put our understanding of the Scripture and our doctrinal views higher than the Person of Jesus...we worship idols. Anything we place above the Lord Jesus is an idol. Our unity is not in a teaching, it's in a Person, and in that Person we always find one another.â€

“Being able to declare Jesus Christ as God, is absolutely necessary; essential to being a believer, without it what sets us apart from Jews or Muslims?â€


Non-Trinitarians don’t believe Jesus is God and consequently would have no reason to worship Jesus as God.

To say that believing that Jesus is God is essential to being a believer, and what differentiates the believer from the followers of Judaism and Islam nullifies the first quote above. It makes a doctrine about Jesus the essential rather than the person of Jesus. Thereby validating the idea of doctrinal unity in Christianity.


“I think you display a righteous anger towards the brokenness of the Body.â€

There is one Body. It isn’t broken. It’s the expression of the one Body on earth that’s broken. That doesn’t cause me to be angry. It causes me to be sad. The expression is broken because Christians claiming to be following Christ by virtue of the self-denotation of Christian, are obviously not following Christ.

The whole purpose of the Lord’s Table is to experience Jesus as our oneness and Jesus as our redemption. Most Christians only experience their own denomination as oneness and redemption.


“I respect you, although, I don't agree with the way you go about expressing yourself. You see, you are a believer! A follower of Christ, who sees the Word of God as the Word of God and Christianity as a man-made religion... and I agree with you.â€

A follower of Christ is NOT what I am.

Anyone can be a follower. Whether of men or organizations. Whether of the teachings of men or organizations. They are forever merely followers. Something so natural anyone can do it. They can’t be in the man or the teachings or the organization. And that’s the difference between a Christian and what I claim to be. One who is in Christ. Being in Christ far transcends the naturalness of being a follower of Christ because it’s supernatural.

To some that sounds Gnostic and self-aggrandizing. But I believe that all true believers are intended to experience be in Christ, not followers of Christ. If you read my understanding of Justification, you might be able to understand what I mean a little better.

Christ is much more than just a prophet or a rabbi. Christ is more than just a man. But in Christianity, that is all he is in practicality. And irrelevant to boot. They practice Biblical interpretation. The practice of interpretation is only necessary if the one being interpreted is absent or dead. Those who practice Biblical interpretation effectively nullify any real experience of the supernatural, of the presence of God in Christ through the Holy Spirit.

I don’t claim to be totally free of the practice Biblical interpretation, even though I know its affects and oppose the practice. Long years of an old habit dies hard. But the knowledge and overt opposition makes it easier for Jesus to get through to me, then it does one who believes that the practice of Biblical interpretation is the only proper way to understand the Bible.

Anyone can be a Christian. All they have to do is say they are a Christian. All they have to do is to follow a denomination of Christianity. We can make irrelevant distinctions between the true and the false Christian, which are in all practicality denominational distinctions. Being IN Christ is something different altogether.

“by rejecting our modern understanding of "Christian=follower of Christ" you cause others to be weary of you. "Oh no, not another possibly angry, hateful Christian turned atheist who is here to tell us about how nice and polite they are and then insult us as politely as possible every chance they get" is what I believe many think when a new atheist joins the board. I hope it's something for you to consider.â€

I don’t reject your definition of the term Christian. It’s the relevancy of the term Christian to the one who is in Christ that I reject.

No doubt many Christians view me in the way you describe. I appreciate that thus far you don’t number yourself among them. I would hope it continues, but I realize that sentiments can change in an instant.

I can no more change or stop following what I believe has been revealed to me than Paul could. We’re not in this to make men feel good about us. I’m as pleasant as possible only so no one will have a bad attitude to use against me. They’ll have to reveal themselves by giving real reasons for opposing my understanding of things.


“The atheist doesn't know God, His love and mercy, or His message of love sent to us in Christ. The one who calls Himself a servant, follower, believer of Christ who is abusing children, has heard the Gospel of Love and gone so far as to perpetrate vile evil in His Name.â€

Atheists I know are well aware of the Christian God, His love and mercy, and his message of love sent to us in Christ. Some better than Christians do themselves. They simply don’t believe such a God exists. They don’t see any indication in the world, which they see in a very natural way; they don’t see any indication in Christianity, which they view in the same way that I do, as a man-made religion. And that, my dear lady, brings more shame on Christians than any denial of using the term Christian as a self-denotation ever can. The Atheists who are my friends aren’t paranoid toward nor prejudiced against those who believe differently than themselves. As are the New Atheists. There are many Christian friends that I will never have because they can’t accept me as I am, but only as they are.


“I don't agree with throwing the baby out with the bath water. Within Christianity we are split into three--the babes, the meat eaters, and the elders. We need each other.â€

If I had rejected Christ when I rejected Christianity, the overused metaphor of the baby and the bathwater might obliquely apply to me.

Many explanations and methods of growth have been advocated relating to “Christian†growth. To me, growth among those who are in Christ is due to having a relationship with Jesus Christ. Growth is just the experience of being conformed to the image of Jesus Christ. It’s not the same as conforming to a doctrinal standard that anyone can do if they put their mind to it.

You speak of growth as if you’re expecting others to grow in your direction. That could only imply that you have stopped growing yourself. But in an effort to be fair to you, perhaps you’re thinking of growth in the direction that a particular understanding of Christian history dictates, as the leading ones of this forum advocates. Assuming you’re a Protestant, that would be one of the Protestant interpretations of Christian history.

Those who are in Christ need each other. But not as fellow combatants in the battle for the ultimate state of doctrinal control.


“And all this to bring me around back to the point I started with, I don't agree with the way you express yourself in terms of rejecting Christianity....â€

I’m a former Christian, not because of what Gandhi or anyone else may have said about Christians or Christianity. Nor because of the Christian hypocrites. Nor because of those who have overt sin in their lives. Rather, I’m a former Christian because I came to realize the nature and character of Christianity itself. A nature it has had since the beginning and a character that has continued historically and overtly since at least the fourth century. The world as expressed in the Roman Empire didn’t embrace those who are in Christ. It embraced a religion. The use of the term “Christianâ€, follower of Christ, just reveals the nature and character of Christianity. It claims to follow Christ by referring to itself under a derivative of the term Christian. But it’s far from following Christ in actuality according to John 17, Galatians 3, Ephesians 4, Colossians 3, to mention a few.

Christians think that my understanding of those Scriptural portions is just my interpretation, just my opinion. And if all we have are opinions, then what are we really left with? What amounts to an Atheistic religion. Of course, that’s just my opinion too.

One doesn’t have to claim to be an Atheist to be one. All one has to do is to treat the supernatural as if it doesn’t exist. Practicing Biblical interpretation is just one way to treat the supernatural as if it doesn’t exist.

FC

 

[Former Christian]

Queequeg’s Travels

“the early Church seemed to have many issues, but they remained one body. When Jesus addresses the 7 churches in revelations, they are known by their location not their position.â€

Distinct denominations with their own names of distinction didn’t exist in the first century. Christianity existed, but hadn’t developed in that way as yet. The ekklesia were known by location as you say. The Churches in Christianity are nothing like the ekklesia described in the NT. But because the Greek word ekklesia is translated as Church, the deception that the Churches of Christianity are the same as the ekklesia of the NT has sway today.

It’s my belief that what the NT writers were fighting were not so much Judaizers. But rather a new religion that was developing in imitation of the true ekklesia that expressed the Body of Christ. A religion that was influencing many in the true ekklesia. A religion that later became what we know today as Christianity. Paul speaks of division by followers of different men within a single ekklesia (1 Cor). The denominationalism of Christianity goes way beyond what Paul wrote about. So that if the division that existed in a first century ekklesia was wrong, how wrong must be the present denominational situation in Christianity?

FC

 

[mondar]

Where do Christians unite! I am sorry to say we are a sorry bunch when it comes to being united in Christ. I'll explain with an example. I believe we need to be vigilant in accepting how the word of God is teached. Some of us might be babes in Christ and some mature, but we all need to discern the multitude of Christian litrature and messages out there. I wont go into scripture to emphasize this, we know that much is true. I appreciate the discernment of people like Dave Hunt, John Piper, John macArthur etc. Yet Dave Hunt written books against Calvanistic teachings and the calvanistic teachers and preachers attack the other side. WHY? Our unity should be in Christ. The fundermentals of both sides have their basis in the simple TRUTH of the Gospel. As Christians we are supposed to have the SAME Holy Spirit within us yet our earthly pride cacoons us into hard headed thinking, disobeying Jesus teaching to us. Again I have to ask why? Does anyone think that Christ is going to be more concerned with this or maybe he just wants us to live for him, to display his character in everything we do and to love (an action word) one another.
YES we must expose teachining and teachers that manipulate the Gospel to the benefit of a wordly experience. YES we must discern all teaching and ensure it expresses the word of God, and expose it if its not. BUT our basic belief in the TRUTH, THE GOSPEL should shine UNITY IN CHRIST.

Ed the Ned, I don't think unity is even on the table. I have read Dave Hunt, John Piper and Johnny Mac. The first step for unity would be for non-Calvinists to accept what Calvinist say about their own teaching and doctrine. Not all Non-Calvinists are as bad as Dave Hunt. I would suggest reading a book... "Debating Calvinism" by Dave Hunt and James White. White has wanted to follow up with other live debates. That is something I would love to see, but Hunt has refused.

As for me, and these threads.... the shrill tone of the rhetoric against Calvinism seems quite harsh to me. I will admit that words like "heresy" or "false teaching" are offensive when fellow evangelicals use such language against me. Other things that are disappointing is that some non-Calvinist evangelicals will repeat the same errors about Calvinism over and over again. They will say "this is what Calvinist teach" but it is just common misrepresentations of what Calvinist teach. These accusations against Calvinists are so common, and repeated so often, that it becomes in their mind the essence of what Calvinism teaches. Their tradition dictates what Calvinism teaches, and they feel no need to properly represent what Calvinism actually teaches. One such example is right in this thread. Read post #2 by childeye. The OP mentioned John Piper or Johnny Mac. Read them and show me where they says "God is the blame for sin." That is something no Calvinist would ever say, but its something infinitely repeated by some non-Calvinists to describe what Calvinists are saying.

So my question, is on what basis can there be unity or even a fair dialogue? If non-Calvinists cannot even go to the effort of properly representing what Calvinist teach, and then they feel the need to swiftly throw in words like heresy and false teacher, how can dialogue even begin with such rhetoric? Is not the first part of dialogue when one listens to what the other side is saying and properly represents them? I can correct the same misunderstandings of Calvinism over and over again, but these people will continue to repeat the same errors. They are not listening. Where then is dialogue? Dialogue and a charitable discussion (one without words like "heresy" or "false teaching") in which the other side fairly represents what Calvinists are saying must occur first before one can even dream any kind of unity.

The question is not unity, we are not even close enough to talk about any kind of unity. The question is how can we even talk to one another.

 

[Former Christian]

Mondar

“As for me, and these threads.... the shrill tone of the rhetoric against Calvinism seems quite harsh to me. I will admit that words like "heresy" or "false teaching" are offensive when fellow evangelicals use such language against me.â€

Sounds no less harsh when a Calvinist uses such rhetoric against others. If you wish to be a part of Christianity, you’re going go have to harden yourself to such people. Or do as I do. When I run into someone like that, Calvinists included, I just don’t talk to them anymore. I see no reason to be frustrated by their asininity.


“misrepresentations of what Calvinist teachâ€

Fighting the straw man is common in Christianity. People rarely understand what I claim to believe. I had a Calvinist use the question method on me, as if he was trying to understand my point of view, only to use my answers as a soapbox for his own doctrine. I didn’t pick up on it until I noticed the same questions were being asked more than once.

The ground of unity in Christianity is doctrine formulated through the practice of Biblical interpretation. The Bible isn’t a doctrinal book. It’s a Spiritual book intended to be used by Jesus Christ through the Spirit to teach us. It isn’t intended to be fodder for the practice of Biblical interpretation. A practice that has resulted in the extreme denominational doctrinalism in Christianity seen today. A practice that has finally reached its ultimate expression in “Biblical†Protestantism.


“show me where they says "God is the blame for sin." That is something no Calvinist would ever say, but its something infinitely repeated by some non-Calvinists to describe what Calvinists are saying.â€

Sometimes a doctrine implies certain things to certain people. They have the if-then scenario in their own mind that leads to the implication in their own mind. And sometimes there is good reason for believing the implication that should be factored into the equation.

Some Calvinists teach that there is no free will due to the blindness of all through the fall. This idea makes individuals non-culpable for sin. The only one left to be culpable for the sin of the sinner is the creator of the non-culpable sinner. It’s why I believe in free will. The idea of free will, rather than being a religion that is the man of sin, as one Calvinist put it, puts the blame for sin where it belongs, on the individual sinning. It provides the reason for the provision of the redemption in Christ. A provision that’s a free gift that must be received and accepted to be effective. If man has no free will, there can be no gift that can be received. That is apart from God being both gift giver and gift receiver. As if God were trying to rectify his own mistake. The sin that he created, inadvertently or otherwise.

I don’t remember your stance on free will. If you believe that man does have free will, or at least a degree of free will that allows for culpability for personal sin and the ability to choose or reject the free gift of redemption, then this doesn’t apply to your view of Calvinism.

If you don’t believe that man has free will, you might be interested to know that Physicist Michio Kaku claims that quantum physics proves that free will doesn’t exist. You welcome.


“on what basis can there be unityâ€

In Christianity, the ground of unity is doctrinal. The history of Christianity shows that unity can only be achieved denominationally on that ground. People just don’t understand the Bible alike when interpretation is involved.

The true ground of unity is the person of Christ (John 17) through the Spirit (Ephesians 4), and it’s only possible among those who are truly in Christ and walking by the Spirit. The ground for all others can only be philosophical through the exercise of the mind, the creator of the denominational doctrines of Christianity.


“on what basis can there be.... a fair dialogue?â€

Dialogue is for people who see their religion only in natural doctrinal terms. The term dialogue seems so much more sophisticated, doesn’t it? The term dialogue just seems to be a “nicer†term than debate. But debate is all it is. Dialogue/debate creates soapboxes for the natural doctrinal people to present their own points of view. The last fifty years of dialogue has shown that dialogue achieves unity chiefly among Christian liberals. And when dialogue does result in unity, it’s a unity of compromise. Truth that’s open to compromise isn’t truth.


“The question is not unity, we are not even close enough to talk about any kind of unity. The question is how can we even talk to one another.â€

According to the history of Christianity, Christians generally can’t talk to each other where doctrine is concerned. Unless they’re willing to compromise their own point of view. Or are among the rare individuals who are sure enough and comfortable enough in their own doctrines that they can talk doctrine as if it didn’t matter. Otherwise it’s just a constant round of debate. A constant struggle for doctrinal control. A constant rehashing of interpretive understandings of the Biblical text. It’s part and parcel of the idea that the ground of unity is doctrine. Christianity is just a man-made religion. Just as man-made nations give no quarter in regard to their own philosophy, so also the denominations of Christianity. Until they become liberal enough that doctrine matters so little as to be a part of a barter system.


I oppose Calvinism for four reasons.

First, is admittedly an emotional reason that resulted in an original bias against Calvinism that has since been proven to my satisfaction to be reasonable after all. The first Church I attended was a Calvinist Church. I read the Bible for myself as they encouraged me to do. And when I understood the Bible differently than they did, they kicked me out of their Church. The experience led to other experiences I wouldn’t have had otherwise. But I wouldn’t give a Calvinist the time of day for a while after that.

Second, I believe Calvinist doctrine is interpretive. The practice of Biblical interpretation changes the meaning of the Bible to conform to the doctrine.

Third, the source of Calvinism was John Calvin, an unrepentant murderer. His relationship with Michael Servetus, a non-Trinitarian and opposer of Calvin’s doctrine, is a matter of public record. He did like Paul did when he held the clothes of the stoners of Stephen. Paul repented, John Calvin didn’t. At least I know of no evidence of where he did. If you know of such a record, I’d appreciate knowing about it. Nevertheless, only the happy happenstance of the era in which Calvinism started keeps it from being considered a cult today. If John Calvin had lived in the last hundred years, he and his followers would be considered as cultic as the JW’s due to the controlling nature of Calvin and his followers. But it must be acknowledged that his controlling nature may well have been in keeping with the way the Western Church was in the sixteenth century. John Calvin was like the Protestant version of the Spanish Inquisition in his own area of influence.

Fourth, the fruit of Calvinists has been no different from any other doctrinal class that’s a part of the Christian religion. Implying to me that regarding Calvinism, a difference that makes no difference is no difference.


James White is an excellent debater, knowing and exercising all the rhetorical tricks. Which says nothing about the verity of Calvinism nor the non-verity thereof. It says a lot about James White. It says something about you as well for picking him as your standard bearer. You’d be better off picking another standard bearer for Calvinism, like John MacArthur or R. C. Sproul.


This rant is a rant regarding your rant.

FC

 

[Former Christian]

Query

Truth – “the quality or state of being true; that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality; a fact or belief that is accepted as true.”
(Oxford Dictionary)

Truth – “A fact that has been verified; Conformity to reality or actuality; A true statement.”
(WordWeb)

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
(KJV)

The definitions refer to something intangible or an idea. The Bible can be said to contain truth. What a person teaches could be considered truth in this sense, but not the person himself. A person might be truthful in presentation of teaching. But being truthful doesn’t mean that the person is truth itself. Yet some would say that the person of Christ, Christ himself is truth.

In what way is Jesus as a person....truth?

FC

 

[Former Christian]

I've just changed my post by adding a sentence to what it now reads.

FC