Why so many theologies?

[dadof10]

Oh, okay. Yeah, I would agree that is the Biblical model I just don't think a certain denomination has a corner on the market on this. And, I'm talking about disagreements on much finer points than what was discussed in Acts 15. When they were saying: 1 "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." ...thats a pretty huge misconception.

No, you're right. The Catholics and the Orthodox do it... :D All kidding aside, I don't see this model being used by Protestants. If there is a disagreement on a point of doctrine by the church leaders, more times than most, there is a split. If your view of "church" is the "community of believers" and you think that Protestantism in general holds to the Biblical model, there should be submisson, as in Acts 15, instead of division.

 

[mondar]

If your heart is pure, you will read it right. For God tests you, and is proving you to show that your heart is right.

Mondar,

What if you and I read the same Scriptures, and come to different (even opposite) conclusions?

If we come to opposite conclusions about some topic like the gospel, one of us has an unregenerate heart.

How are we to know which one of our hearts is right?

The scriptures teach that the regenerate will have fruits.

It seems you are saying that if someone disagrees with your theology his heart is in the wrong place or impure.

Your taking a cheap shot here. I said nothing of the sort and your just making this up.

The only way, is for you to consult the scriptures themselves.

Can you show where this is in Scripture?[/code]

Well, I know what your getting at here. Your looking for a debate on sola scriptura. They way you cut that statement out of the paragraph I wrote demonstrates what you are looking for. The text I would use will of course be 2 Tim 3:17. 2 Tim 3:17 demonstrates that the man of God is complete, and throughly furnished until all good works. If I am completely furnished, what other equipment do I need?

Actually if you look at what I said in context, I compared it with depending upon the priests in Jerusalem. I was suggesting that the only way people could identify a false prophet was to consult Deuteronomy and the scriptures themselves and not depend upon the apostate authorities in Jerusalem. You seem to ignore what I write and want to draw the conversation to sola scriptura, that is fine with me, but maybe not the ops. I think they forbid Protestant/catholic debates. I suggest you just deal with the issue that the authorities in Jerusalem were apostate and the Jew of that day would have to depend upon the scriptures.

[quote:2z180id6]In conclusion, their should be competing theologies. Its the way it always was and the way it always will be.

Not according to Acts 15-16. It was not left to the individual communities to reject the decision made in Jerusalem. 16:4 "As they went on their way through the cities, they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem."

There is no evidence either in Scripture or the historical record, that competing theologies were tolerated in the early Church.

God Bless, Mark

I see there is already conversation on the Jerusalem council. Nevertheless, why cannot you read my words in context? Let me quote the entire paragraph.

In conclusion, their should be competing theologies. Its the way it always was and the way it always will be. Its the way God knows your heart. The Israelites of old did not need a special interpreter to follow Deuteronomy 13. The priests in Jerusalem would have explained the text away. Read it for yourself, and know the Lord.

From this you get that I am saying that "competing theologies were tolerated in the early Church." Well, heheh, I must admit that this is again disappointing. I guess I must be some dirtball that you do not need to really read and understand what I am saying. I actually was saying the exact opposite of what you seem to be asserting that I was saying.

When I said..."their should be competing theologies." Then I later said ... "Its the way God knows your heart." The upright heart will be able to discern between wrong and right theologies.

How can you even think I was saying that it is acceptable to have competing theologies? Di you bother to read my first paragraph?

False and wrong theologies go back as far as the serpent in the garden of Eden. Some might look at the existence of different theologies in a post modern way. The post modern attitude is that "well there are many different paths to the truth." In the passage above, the different paths do not lead to the truth. Only one path leads to truth. The purpose of competing theologies is not to have different paths that lead to the truth but so that God can "Jehovah your God proveth you, to know whether ye love Jehovah your God with all your heart and with all your soul." God will know hearts by the theological choices we make.

[/quote:2z180id6]

Dadof10, I must admit I feel discouraged by your response to me. You have put no effort into trying to understand what I am saying. Am I really that worthless in your opinion that you respond to me without understanding what I said? Did you even bother to look at the scriptures I quoted?

 

[francisdesales]

If we come to opposite conclusions about some topic like the gospel, one of us has an unregenerate heart.

Where is this idea in Scriptures? Where does the Bible tell us that the Holy Spirit only comes to us if we are infallibly interpreting Scriptures? Your logic leads one to believe that one must be infallibly correct with the Scriptures, otherwise, they are unregenerate!!!

That is flat out incorrect thinking, as Paul NEVER calls the Corinthians "unregenerate", although he DOES call them "babes" who require milk, rather than meat. He does this also to the Hebrews audience. Clearly, being a bible scholar is not necessary to be "regenerate", although the intellegentsia would have it that way to stroke their egos...

The scriptures teach that the regenerate will have fruits.

The Scritpures teach us the the regenerate also falter and fail. Have you not heard of the concept of discipline in the NT and why God allows evil things to happen to us - "good" people? Does the Bible tell us that the regenerate are now perfect and NEVER sin again?

Well, I know what your getting at here. Your looking for a debate on sola scriptura. They way you cut that statement out of the paragraph I wrote demonstrates what you are looking for. The text I would use will of course be 2 Tim 3:17. 2 Tim 3:17 demonstrates that the man of God is complete, and throughly furnished until all good works. If I am completely furnished, what other equipment do I need?

First of all, you are bringing up the idea of the bible being the sole source of Christian faith, not Dad. Secondly, WHO is this letter addressed to, by the way? Timothy, a leader of the community, or every Christian? The verse is refering to a magistrate, not anyone who picks up the Bible (as the eunuch in Acts clearly shows...) I think you are going way beyond the intent of Paul, making some wild claim that everyone is "complete" by reading Scriptures, which would deny a slew of OTHER Scritpures that tell us otherwise.

Actually if you look at what I said in context, I compared it with depending upon the priests in Jerusalem. I was suggesting that the only way people could identify a false prophet was to consult Deuteronomy and the scriptures themselves and not depend upon the apostate authorities in Jerusalem.

If we consult Deuteronomy for all of our theology, then what about those who are hung upon a tree are cursed by God? Clearly, Paul and John and Jude and Peter tell the Christian communities to hold onto what they have ALREADY received from the traditions passed down - both oral and written. Thus, any itenerant "protester" preacher could be seen as false, if they taught something about double predestination or the absolute corruptness of man... The Bible doesn't hold itself up as the rule of faith. The CHURCH is the pillar and foundation of the truth, not the Bible, which wasn't even written and compiled yet for decades after Christianity began. The Church Fathers RARELY speak of the "Gospels" until the late second century - which leads one to believe that the Gospels themselves were not the rule of faith - but rather, the teachings of the bishops which taught the Gospel.

Regards

 

[dadof10]

If we come to opposite conclusions about some topic like the gospel, one of us has an unregenerate heart.

The scriptures teach that the regenerate will have fruits.

Well, I know (by my own subjective reasoning) I'm regenerate and I bear good fruit. So, therefore, if we disagree about the Gospel, which we do, then (going by my subjective reasoning again) you are unregenerate and in severe need of repentance. You should run down to the nearest Catholic Church and convert immediately.

Can you show me where I'm wrong for thinking this way? Is this the way the Christ set up his Church to handle doctrinal disputes? (Hint: Acts 15-16)

dadof10 wrote:
It seems you are saying that if someone disagrees with your theology his heart is in the wrong place or impure.
Your taking a cheap shot here. I said nothing of the sort and your just making this up.

Your words are: "If your heart is pure, you will read it right. For God tests you, and is proving you to show that your heart is right." That is a PURELY SUBJECTIVE sentence, so if someone disagrees with your concept of "right", they are in error, correct? If this is not what you believe, please rephrase the sentence.

Well, I know what your getting at here. Your looking for a debate on sola scriptura. They way you cut that statement out of the paragraph I wrote demonstrates what you are looking for.

OK, here is the whole paragraph: "The answer lies not in following the watchtower society, or the prophets and apostles in Salt lake city, nor in any group of people that will interpret the word of God for you. You must consult the word of God itself. If your heart is pure, you will read it right. For God tests you, and is proving you to show that your heart is right. The only way, is for you to consult the scriptures themselves. I do not say it is easy to study the word of God, but I do say that the scriptures were understandable to the original audience (perspicuity of scriptures). I dont intend to sell my soul to any other man or any prophet or any priest or any apostle. I will study the scriptures and work in them and follow my own conscience.

Please explain how I did your words any injustice.

The text I would use will of course be 2 Tim 3:17. 2 Tim 3:17 demonstrates that the man of God is complete, and throughly furnished until all good works. If I am completely furnished, what other equipment do I need?

"All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."

This means use Scripture alone to discern doctrine?

"All vegatables are good to eat and profitable for muscles, for eyesight and for stamina when working, so that the person may be complete, fully equipped for a good day's work."

Did I just tell you to become a veggan? To eat NOTHING but vegatables? Or did I tell you to SUPPLIMENT your diet with vegatables?

You're reaching.

I suggest you just deal with the issue that the authorities in Jerusalem were apostate and the Jew of that day would have to depend upon the scriptures.

I'm not going to "deal" with your false interpretation of Judiaism. You mentioned passages from Deut. that show the apostacy of some Priests, then with NO Biblical backing say "How would people know which prist was a priest of God? They had to read the scriptures! They had to red the instructions in Deuteronomy." You made a GIANT jump. I don't believe the Jews taught sola Scriptura either.

In conclusion, their should be competing theologies. Its the way it always was and the way it always will be. Its the way God knows your heart. The Israelites of old did not need a special interpreter to follow Deuteronomy 13. The priests in Jerusalem would have explained the text away. Read it for yourself, and know the Lord.

From this you get that I am saying that "competing theologies were tolerated in the early Church." Well, heheh, I must admit that this is again disappointing. I guess I must be some dirtball that you do not need to really read and understand what I am saying. I actually was saying the exact opposite of what you seem to be asserting that I was saying.

When I said..."their should be competing theologies." Then I later said ... "Its the way God knows your heart." The upright heart will be able to discern between wrong and right theologies.

OK. let's keep going. When you said, "In conclusion, their should be competing theologies", did you mean that it is natural for there to be competing theologies? When you said, "Its the way it always was and the way it always will be." did you mean that it always was that way and will always be that way? Please elaborate.

I see there is already conversation on the Jerusalem council.

Feel free to join in. We are, after all, talking about why there are so many competing theologies in the NT Church, not Judiaism.

Why do you think the Church in Antioch didn't just consult Scripture and settle this dispute themselves? Why did they find it NECESSARY to appeal to the Apostles and Elders in Jerusalem? Huuummm....

 

[mondar]

If we come to opposite conclusions about some topic like the gospel, one of us has an unregenerate heart.

Where is this idea in Scriptures? Where does the Bible tell us that the Holy Spirit only comes to us if we are infallibly interpreting Scriptures? Your logic leads one to believe that one must be infallibly correct with the Scriptures, otherwise, they are unregenerate!!!

Francisdesales,
Hehe, how did you get out of my words that I said one must infallibly interpret Scriptures otherwise they are unregenerate? Come on! Can you show me the word "infallibly interpret" in my previous post? You are grossly exaggerating what I said. I could do the same with you guys and say that you are denying the bible should be read and followed by any individual. Of course I know that is not what you believe, but that is the sort of behavior you are engaging in here.

That is flat out incorrect thinking, as Paul NEVER calls the Corinthians "unregenerate", although he DOES call them "babes" who require milk, rather than meat. He does this also to the Hebrews audience. Clearly, being a bible scholar is not necessary to be "regenerate", although the intellegentsia would have it that way to stroke their egos...

First, concerning the use of the term "unregenerate" with regard to the Corinthians... I agree that Paul never calls the Corinthians "unregenerate." In fact he calls them just the opposite. In 1 Cor 1:2 Paul sends the epistle to "the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling..." If Paul calls them saints, he cannot be calling them "unregenerate." It escapes me what you say this however. It would seem to support the point I am making that the scriptures belong to the saints, or regenerate.

Second, concerning the milk analogies in 1 Cor 3:1 and Hebrews 2:2.... The two uses of the term "milk" are not totally identical. In Hebrews 2:2 it is an analogy in which all the word of God is the "milk of the word." In Hebrews it is another way to say that we should desire all the word of God as a newborn baby desires milk.

The use in 1 Cor 2 is different from the use of "milk" in Hebrews. Paul is condemning the Corinthians Church for their carnality in that they are not able to tolerate all biblical doctrines. They can only digest the simple parts because of their carnality or fleshliness. I would agree with your statement that this does not make them unregenerate. Since God regenerated them, only God would be able to unregenerate them, and there is no such biblical doctrine where God "unregenerates" a person.

The problem is how does any of this relate to my discussion in my previous 2 posts? I made the proposition that when confronted with an apostate leadership in Jerusalem, the regenerate would turn to the scriptures, and passages like Deuteronomy 13, rather then blindly follow the apostate Jerusalem leadership. I never included any concept of the regenerate being sinlessness or infallible in those propositions, merely that they would be able to follow scriptures instead of the apostate Jerusalem leadership. Certainly the regenerate are not perfect. That seems an axiomatic statement of the obvious to me, but what does that have to do with my proposition that the regenerate will not apostatize with the Jerusalem leadership but will turn to scriptures.

My original proposition had to do with the subject of these thread and explained why there are so many theologies. There should be correct and wrong theologies. They will be the dividing line between the regenerate and the unregenerate. The regenerate make mistakes, but they will not apostatize. If they apostatize, and leave the church, they were never of us.
'John 2:19 talks about apostates who left the Church. John says "They went out from us, but they were not really of us.; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us."
An example of this would be Bart Ehrman. He claims to be a former Christian who apostatized. I doubt Bart Ehrman ever actually had faith as faith should be.

The scriptures teach that the regenerate will have fruits.

The Scritpures teach us the the regenerate also falter and fail. Have you not heard of the concept of discipline in the NT and why God allows evil things to happen to us - "good" people? Does the Bible tell us that the regenerate are now perfect and NEVER sin again?

Sigh... And of course I never said the regenerate are sinless.

Well, I know what your getting at here. Your looking for a debate on sola scriptura. They way you cut that statement out of the paragraph I wrote demonstrates what you are looking for. The text I would use will of course be 2 Tim 3:17. 2 Tim 3:17 demonstrates that the man of God is complete, and throughly furnished until all good works. If I am completely furnished, what other equipment do I need?

First of all, you are bringing up the idea of the bible being the sole source of Christian faith, not Dad. Secondly, WHO is this letter addressed to, by the way? Timothy, a leader of the community, or every Christian? The verse is referring to a magistrate, not anyone who picks up the Bible (as the eunuch in Acts clearly shows...) I think you are going way beyond the intent of Paul, making some wild claim that everyone is "complete" by reading Scriptures, which would deny a slew of OTHER Scriptures that tell us otherwise.

So when Paul said that the scriptures are adequate for Timothy, this does not mean the scriptures are adequate for anybody else? Where in the context does 2 Tim 3:16-17 mentioned that the scriptures are to be handled only by the magistrate? Is the scriptures inspired of itself, or is in inspired only when the magisteruim pronounces it inspired? I believe Pauls said "all scripture is inspired." He did not say it will be inspired when the Magisterium gets around to approving it as inspired. The adequacy of the scriptures is based upon the nature of scriptures as inspired.

Again, please show me where the magistrate must pronounce scripture to be inspired and therefore adequate.

Actually if you look at what I said in context, I compared it with depending upon the priests in Jerusalem. I was suggesting that the only way people could identify a false prophet was to consult Deuteronomy and the scriptures themselves and not depend upon the apostate authorities in Jerusalem.

If we consult Deuteronomy for all of our theology, then what about those who are hung upon a tree are cursed by God?

Where did I propose that we should only consult Deuteronomy for our theology? Hehe, why do you do that? If you cannot argue with what I say you act like I am saying something else.

Clearly, Paul and John and Jude and Peter tell the Christian communities to hold onto what they have ALREADY received from the traditions passed down - both oral and written.

We can go over all this again if you wish. Of course you are alluding to 2 Thes 2:15 where Pauls mentions traditions to be kept which were given in both writing and orally.
* however in 2 Thes 2:5 Pauls says "Do you remember tht while I was still with you, I was telling you these things." What things did Paul tell the Thessalonians orally? He makes it clear that he wrote those same things in the book of 2 Thessalonians. So then, since we cannot have Pauls oral words, we have what is necessary in written form.

Thus, any itenerant "protester" preacher could be seen as false,

Heh, a lightly veiled slam on those nasty protestants?

if they taught something about double predestination or the absolute corruptness of man... The Bible doesn't hold itself up as the rule of faith.
LOL, more specifically a slam on those nasty Calvinists.

However, the bible does hold itself up as adequate to completely equip the man of God for every good work. The language "rule of faith" is later theological language. The apostles and prophets held up their scriptures as sufficient for doctrine, reproof, etc. Christ himself did not quote the authorities in Jerusalem, but quoted the scriptures.

The CHURCH is the pillar and foundation of the truth, not the Bible, which wasn't even written and compiled yet for decades after Christianity began. The Church Fathers RARELY speak of the "Gospels" until the late second century - which leads one to believe that the Gospels themselves were not the rule of faith - but rather, the teachings of the bishops which taught the Gospel.

Regards

[/quote]
Lets go with the "pillar and foundation of the truth" issue" since you are alluding to scriptures. The text is 1 Tim 3:15,
"but if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how men ought to behave themselves in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."
Certainly I agree that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth. Protestant Churches have teachers and preachers who teach every sunday. These people support the truth by their teaching. Of course they do not replace the truth. Neither should the Church, or the magesterium replace the truth. Are not you arguing for your magesterium to replace the truth, or just merely to support it? There is a difference. One is biblical, the other is not.

Francisdesales, we can discuss the issue of why there are different theologies. I had no intention of attacking the Catholic view of infallible tradition when I first wrote. That is not what the thread is about. My original proposition was that differing theologies are present to test us. Remember how I quoted Deuteronomy 13? Did not the text back up my point of view? How can God test us unless there are different theological (IE the false prophet) points of view?

 

[Veritas]

In a sense, but I think that idea is taken way too far in some modes of Christianity. Christ left the Apostles to bind and loosen. Why did Christ establish such an heirarchy? Because men take it upon themselves to "know" what the Spirit teaches them, and often against what the Spirit says to the REST of the Church! In addition, men need to be disciplined by those whom they hold in high regard or have been given authority from above, such as St. Paul writing the Corinthians and threatening to bring the big stick!

We have authority to read Scriptures, but not override the Church, or ignore our leaders (yea, even Protestants are supposed to follow their leaders...!)

Joe, I understand your point of view. To a point I agree.

How can you take a problem or issue up with the "invisible church"? Really, that "invisible church" idea is not found in Scriptures, except in the eschatological sense at the end of time (after the angels come to harvest the fields...)

.....we believe the Church is divinely instituted by Christ Himself when He built upon the apostles a community of believers. You seem to think that the Church is merely a human organization that is not really part of the Mystical Body of Christ.

I am not about to judge you, Craig. But does your conscience tell you that we are to obey Christ COMPLETELY?

Yes, it does....I hope its on cue from the Holy Spirit. I pray about that. As far as the invisible church goes, I know my fellow believers by their fruits. Lets see, I have friends I consider Christians who are Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, Assmebly of God, Lutheran, Catholic, Non-Denom., Reformed, "Home" churches, Episcopalian.... I'm sure there are others I can't think of at the moment. But the point is, I am as sure as I can be they are Christian. And when I have problems I go to not only the church I attend, but my other many friends. They help me and pray for me. I am very thankful for this. I would also say the "invisible" church has scriptural support because only God truely (100%) knows who is Christian or not.

 

[Veritas]

Oh, okay. Yeah, I would agree that is the Biblical model I just don't think a certain denomination has a corner on the market on this. And, I'm talking about disagreements on much finer points than what was discussed in Acts 15. When they were saying: 1 "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." ...thats a pretty huge misconception.

No, you're right. The Catholics and the Orthodox do it... :D

Ha Ha :D

All kidding aside, I don't see this model being used by Protestants. If there is a disagreement on a point of doctrine by the church leaders, more times than most, there is a split. If your view of "church" is the "community of believers" and you think that Protestantism in general holds to the Biblical model, there should be submisson, as in Acts 15, instead of division.

I agree with that.. and we should probably be working towards unity somehow....all Christians that is. Unfortunately, I think our hard hearts kinda prevent that. And when that's not a problem then its all this "relativism" stuff. Not to give a cheap shot, but aren't there splits going in within the Catholic churches too? One of my Catholic friends was complaining about this.

 

[mondar]

If we come to opposite conclusions about some topic like the gospel, one of us has an unregenerate heart.

The scriptures teach that the regenerate will have fruits.

Well, I know (by my own subjective reasoning) I'm regenerate and I bear good fruit. So, therefore, if we disagree about the Gospel, which we do, then (going by my subjective reasoning again) you are unregenerate and in severe need of repentance. You should run down to the nearest Catholic Church and convert immediately.

Subjective experience is nice, but your subjective experience carries no weight with others. This is not intended to be a personal insult. My subjective experience should carry no weight with you. If I say when I read your post and had heart burn, maybe it was not your post but the onions I hate for lunch. What is the value of subjectivity?

Not only is your statement admittedly subjective, but do I discern some emotionalism in them? IF I am right (there is no way for me to know from reading print--I cannot see your face), but, if you are right, then is that a manifestation of your fruits? If you want me to "run down to the local Catholic Church and Repent" should you not treat me with enough respect to accurately hear what I am saying? How many people do you think were won to Rome by being treated disrespectfully?

Can you show me where I'm wrong for thinking this way? Is this the way the Christ set up his Church to handle doctrinal disputes? (Hint: Acts 15-16)

Certainly I would agree that the example of Acts 15 is the best way to handle doctrinal disputes. Not only that, but I would suggest that since the council of Jerusalem was enscripturated, it is an infallible decision. I would even agree that it was a part of the oral Kurgma of the apostolic Church. I do not agree that the propositions of Acts 15 and 16 demonstrate that any and all other Church councils will be dubbed with enscripturated infallibility.

This is not to say that I think all Church Councils are wrong. Nicea, Chalcedon, Orange, and the Church councils claim to be right, but I dont see where they claim to be infallible. I think there is a differencen between claiming to be right, and claiming infallibility. The council of Jerusalem was infallible because it was enscripturated. Thats my view of Church Councils. I am sure, being Catholic, you will disagree, but I do not see it proposed in Acts 15 or 16 that all or any other councils will be infallible.

It seems you are saying that if someone disagrees with your theology his heart is in the wrong place or impure.

Your taking a cheap shot here. I said nothing of the sort and your just making this up.

Your words are: "If your heart is pure, you will read it right. For God tests you, and is proving you to show that your heart is right." That is a PURELY SUBJECTIVE sentence, so if someone disagrees with your concept of "right", they are in error, correct? If this is not what you believe, please rephrase the sentence.

The sentence came from Deuteronomy 13:3.
...thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or unto that dreamer of dreams: for Jehovah your God proveth you, to know whether ye love Jehovah your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

Now the hypothetical situation I raised concerned a man in Jeremiahs time. Jeremiah 2:8 tells us of the Nation of Israel apostatizing and all the leaders going against God.
Jer 2:8 The priests said not, Where is Jehovah? and they that handle the law knew me not: the rulers also transgressed against me, and the prophets prophesied by Baal, and walked after things that do not profit.

So then, the idea is that we have competing theologies. The question of the thread is "Why so many theologies." I was trying to say that there will always be true and false theologies. God uses true and false theologies to discern the regenerated heart. Notice in Deuteronomy 13:3 that God uses the false prophets (and their false theology) to "proveth" a person to see if "ye love Jehovah your God with all your heart." By the way, the heart terminology related to the new covenant and regeneration. So then, the person who refuses the false prophet is demonstrating his regenerated heart which loves Jehovah by rejecting the false theology of the false prophet.

Soooooo... when in Jeremiah's day, the Priests apostatized, and the prophets followed after Baal, how did the believer identify a correct theology? They went back to Deuteronomy 13 and were able to notice that the prophets of the establishment in Jerusalem were following after Baal.

I did not include Deuteronomy 13:1-2 in my quotes in previous posts. These verses say...
1-- If there arise in the midst of thee a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and he give thee a sign or a wonder,
2-- and the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;
Now who can argue that the established priests and prophets of Jeremiahs day were not calling the people to follow other Gods? The situation fits Deuteronomy 13 perfectly. So then, how can they identify bad theologies? They had the scriptures. Now I am beginning to suspect that we differ in our approach. If the scriptures is sufficient, then the people of Jeremiah's day had what they needed for God to test them and approve them as loving him with all their heart (regeneration).

Now I do not know what you are thinking. It seems to be a muddle of inserting your concepts of infallible Church councils into every situation. So what is the magisterium in Jeremiahs day? Is it these prophets of Baal in Jerusalem, and the priests who knew not the law. Are they to have a council and infallibly interpret scripture? Is that how truth comes? OR is the scriptures itself spiritual truth?

Well, I know what your getting at here. Your looking for a debate on sola scriptura. They way you cut that statement out of the paragraph I wrote demonstrates what you are looking for.

OK, here is the whole paragraph: "The answer lies not in following the watchtower society, or the prophets and apostles in Salt lake city, nor in any group of people that will interpret the word of God for you. You must consult the word of God itself. If your heart is pure, you will read it right. For God tests you, and is proving you to show that your heart is right. The only way, is for you to consult the scriptures themselves. I do not say it is easy to study the word of God, but I do say that the scriptures were understandable to the original audience (perspicuity of scriptures). I dont intend to sell my soul to any other man or any prophet or any priest or any apostle. I will study the scriptures and work in them and follow my own conscience.

Please explain how I did your words any injustice.

I previously did accuse you of doing injustice to my words, but this was not the place. That was with reference to your assertion that I made pluralistic statements. I also reacted to you asserting that I judged peoples hearts if they disagree with me personally. I made no such assertions.

In this paragraph, I judged your motives as looking for a debate on sola scriptura. On this issue I did not suggest that you misread me. I may have been complaining that I did not think we should turn the thread into a sola scriptura debate, but I nevertheless posted my reference to defend that doctrine.

The text I would use will of course be 2 Tim 3:17. 2 Tim 3:17 demonstrates that the man of God is complete, and throughly furnished until all good works. If I am completely furnished, what other equipment do I need?

"All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."

This means use Scripture alone to discern doctrine?

"All vegatables are good to eat and profitable for muscles, for eyesight and for stamina when working, so that the person may be complete, fully equipped for a good day's work."

Did I just tell you to become a veggan? To eat NOTHING but vegatables? Or did I tell you to SUPPLIMENT your diet with vegatables?

You told me more then to supplement my diet with vegetables. You told me that vegetables are sufficient for muscles, eyesight and working. You said I would be fully equipped for a good days work. If that is true, what else do I need other then vegetables? I actually need nothing more for a good days work, right?

Please pass the carrots?

I'm not going to "deal" with your false interpretation of Judiaism. You mentioned passages from Deut. that show the apostacy of some Priests, then with NO Biblical backing say "How would people know which prist was a priest of God? They had to read the scriptures! They had to red the instructions in Deuteronomy." You made a GIANT jump. I don't believe the Jews taught sola Scriptura either.

The passage that shows the apostacy of the priests is Jeremiah, not Deuteronomy.

Dof10, this last paragraph is hard to respond to because of its lack of clarity. You say that I made a "false interpretation of Judiasm" yet you do not show where my interpretation is false. You simply dismiss it as false and do not say why. You complain that I make a giant jump, but again, you do not identify what the righteous Jews of the OT had other then the scriptures.

The righteous Jews had the scriptures (sometimes), by which they could use Deuteronomy 13 to identify the Jewish false prophets in Jerusalem in their day. If you agree with the perspicuity of scriptures for the original audience, what else could they depend upon to identify these prophets as false prophets? You could say that they had oral revelation from Jeremiah, but that is where the Jews went astray. Have you ever read the mishna or the talmud? I must admit I have not read this as a primary source, only in secondary sources. But Talmudic Law, or oral law is where the Jews went astray also. The later Pharisees of the NT were comdemned for their keeping of the traditions of the Fathers.
Mat 15:2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
Mat 15:3 And he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?
The bottom line is that there is no other place the righteous Jews could have turned to identify what prophet was a true prophet then Deuteronomy 13 or some other scripture. What else did they have?

In conclusion, their should be competing theologies. Its the way it always was and the way it always will be. Its the way God knows your heart. The Israelites of old did not need a special interpreter to follow Deuteronomy 13. The priests in Jerusalem would have explained the text away. Read it for yourself, and know the Lord.

From this you get that I am saying that "competing theologies were tolerated in the early Church." Well, heheh, I must admit that this is again disappointing. I guess I must be some dirtball that you do not need to really read and understand what I am saying. I actually was saying the exact opposite of what you seem to be asserting that I was saying.

When I said..."their should be competing theologies." Then I later said ... "Its the way God knows your heart." The upright heart will be able to discern between wrong and right theologies.

OK. let's keep going. When you said, "In conclusion, their should be competing theologies", did you mean that it is natural for there to be competing theologies? When you said, "Its the way it always was and the way it always will be." did you mean that it always was that way and will always be that way? Please elaborate.

I think if you read my original post, you will see that by the term "competing theologies" I am talking about the competition between right and wrong theologies. I had condemned the post modern attitude that there are many ways to the truth.

The question is why does God allow error. Why does he allow perversions of the Gospel? Why does he allow cults? Why does he allow competing false theologies to compete with the truth? The answer from Deuteronomy 13 is that so he might know your heart.

I see there is already conversation on the Jerusalem council.

Feel free to join in. We are, after all, talking about why there are so many competing theologies in the NT Church, not Judiaism.

Why do you think the Church in Antioch didn't just consult Scripture and settle this dispute themselves? Why did they find it NECESSARY to appeal to the Apostles and Elders in Jerusalem? Huuummm....[/quote]

manichunter started the thread. I gave my opinion to manichunter on how ancient Jews identified the true theology. I think its application is obvious. The situation applies to today also. God still allows many different denominations and theologies. In fact gnosticism, arianism, and all the competing theologies are nothing new. I think I answer manichunter's question very well. God allows the competing theologies so that he might know your heart. That is not some judgment against you personally. I think Deuteronomy 13:3 applies to all. Its how God will know my heart, and how God will know everyones heart. Will we follow the false prophets, or the false theologies of our day.

 

[Paidion]

Why so many theologies? Simple. The Bible is probably more widely read than any other book.
Other widely-read books, such as Shakespeare's works, also have multiple interpretations. The fact is, that people come to writings of any kind with many years of experience, literary and otherwise, which powerfully impacts their interpretations.

Some of the interpretations of C.S. Lewis's Narnian Chronicles came out while Lewis was still alive. Lewis read them and remarked something like, "Wow! I never thought of that when I wrote those words. I wish I had."

Many or most Christians have been brought up with a world view which, by osmosis, they absorbed from their family and/or church. Naturally they are going to approach the Scriptures with these biases.

 

[dadof10]

I agree with that.. and we should probably be working towards unity somehow....all Christians that is. Unfortunately, I think our hard hearts kinda prevent that. And when that's not a problem then its all this "relativism" stuff. Not to give a cheap shot, but aren't there splits going in within the Catholic churches too? One of my Catholic friends was complaining about this.

Craig,

I agree with you, we should all be working toward unity, and "hard hearts" are preventing it. My definition of "hard hearts", though would at least include the pride that keeps people from submitting to proper authority. I think that instead of searching Scripture and then looking around us to see which church conforms to our subjective interpretation, we should search Scripture and history to find the Church Christ founded and then submit to Her teachings.

I don't think they can rightly be called "splits", because these people are, by definition, leaving the Catholic Church. I think it's our differing definitions of "church" that are confusing.

God Bless,

Mark

 

[francisdesales]

I hope its on cue from the Holy Spirit. I pray about that. As far as the invisible church goes, I know my fellow believers by their fruits. Lets see, I have friends I consider Christians who are Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, Assmebly of God, Lutheran, Catholic, Non-Denom., Reformed, "Home" churches, Episcopalian.... I'm sure there are others I can't think of at the moment. But the point is, I am as sure as I can be they are Christian. And when I have problems I go to not only the church I attend, but my other many friends. They help me and pray for me. I am very thankful for this. I would also say the "invisible" church has scriptural support because only God truely (100%) knows who is Christian or not.

I believe your definition of "church" refers to the elect who will be saved at the end of days - the eschatological community, the New Jerusalem. No doubt, there will be Muslims and Hindus there, as well, those who loved God, even in an imperfect way. Only God knows who these people are, true. That is why I do not judge who is "saved" and who is not saved. On the other hand, I do believe that Christ established a visible Church on earth for the reason of being a "city upon a hill".

It is good not to judge others in their walk to the point we become exclusive of others who are following their conscience. However, there is only one truth, and God DOES desire that we be saved AND come to the knowledge of the truth. I do not see two churches in Scriptures and I think uniting ourselves in obedience to what Christ established will be of help in our walk with Him.

Take care and have a good weekend,

Brother in Christ.

 

[Bubba]

I No doubt, there will be Muslims and Hindus there, as well, those who loved God, even in an imperfect way.

Francisdesales,
Romans 5:23 “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,†and Acts 4:12, Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.". I think you may want to revisit Romans 2:15, “since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending themâ€Â. The verse is simply a statement, that even though they do not have the written Law they have the Law written in their hearts and are still without excuse. Without Christ’s covering, even a small sin will keep you from glory. Romans 2: 29 says, “No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God..†One must be born again from above (John3ff), then and only then are they saved and have a new heart. Even as a Universalist, I believe that in this life and the next, it is always through Christ one is saved and not by works.
Grace alone, Bubba

 

[francisdesales]

I No doubt, there will be Muslims and Hindus there, as well, those who loved God, even in an imperfect way.

Francisdesales,
Romans 5:23 “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,†and Acts 4:12, Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.". I think you may want to revisit Romans 2:15, “since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending themâ€Â. The verse is simply a statement, that even though they do not have the written Law they have the Law written in their hearts and are still without excuse. Without Christ’s covering, even a small sin will keep you from glory. Romans 2: 29 says, “No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God..†One must be born again from above (John3ff), then and only then are they saved and have a new heart. Even as a Universalist, I believe that in this life and the next, it is always through Christ one is saved and not by works.
Grace alone, Bubba

I didn't say that a Muslim or Hindu will achieve heaven WITHOUT Christ...

Regards

 

[Bubba]

Francisdesales,
If my memory serves me right, you have alluded in the past that people of “goodwill†who have led an exemplary life will go on to heaven in spite of not hearing the gospel of Christ. Is this not correct? In my understanding, only those who know Christ and have become a “new creation†will experience a relationship with God in glory.
Grace, Bubba

 

[francisdesales]

Francisdesales,
If my memory serves me right, you have alluded in the past that people of “goodwill†who have led an exemplary life will go on to heaven in spite of not hearing the gospel of Christ. Is this not correct? In my understanding, only those who know Christ and have become a “new creation†will experience a relationship with God in glory.
Grace, Bubba

I am not of the mind that God has condemned ALL people of the Western Hemisphere who were born before 1500 AD. Nor am I of the mind that God has condemned ALL people born before Jesus Christ became incarnate. God is not bound by your idea of who is saved and who is not saved. Clearly, those who love are of God, according to Scriptures. Remember Jesus said NO ONE can love without Him. Is it not possible that a pagan ignorant of the written gospels in actuality "knows" the Gospel of sacrificial love because of the Spirit?

Given that God's Spirit is not bound by any such problems of time, why cannot we presume that God CAN lead people to obey His commandments with limited proper knowledge of Jesus of Nazareth's death on the cross for the sake of all these people?

Cannot God's Spirit blow where He wills? Ordinarily, God forms a new creation through baptism, but He is not bound by this ritual, and certainly has acted before the time of Christ.

Can we say that Elijah and Enoch are in heaven without ever knowing "Jesus as their personal savior"? Would it be safe to say that the OT saints are in heaven?

Regards

 

[Bubba]

Francisdesales,
I like your attitude in regards to the lost, because it shows a benevolence aspect to your understanding of our God for all people. This is something I struggled with first as an Arminian then as a Calvinist in respect to an all loving God. I think I have found solace in the Universalist position. The reason I make mention at all, of your comment, is that I do not believe any of us are saved by our exemplary behavior, it is solely on the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to our stead. With that said, if God is not working obviously in our lives then we need to examine our salvation (Eph. 2:10, Phil. 2:13 and 2 Cor. 13:5). If one were to say that the heathen or pagan’s ability to love others is from God, I would concur, but only a knowledge and relationship with the risen Saviour actually saves anyone and that is of grace not works.
Blessings, Bubba

 

[dadof10]

Well, I know (by my own subjective reasoning) I'm regenerate and I bear good fruit. So, therefore, if we disagree about the Gospel, which we do, then (going by my subjective reasoning again) you are unregenerate and in severe need of repentance. You should run down to the nearest Catholic Church and convert immediately.

Subjective experience is nice, but your subjective experience carries no weight with others. This is not intended to be a personal insult. My subjective experience should carry no weight with you. If I say when I read your post and had heart burn, maybe it was not your post but the onions I hate for lunch. What is the value of subjectivity?

You must be kidding. Your entire thought process on this is pure subjectivity. That was the reason for the exaggeration in the quote above. We disagree, right? So, according to YOU one of us MUST have an “unregenerate heartâ€Â, right? At least that’s what “If we come to opposite conclusions about some topic like the gospel, one of us has an unregenerate heart†means to me. It may mean the exact opposite to you in the next post, though.

Not only is your statement admittedly subjective, but do I discern some emotionalism in them? IF I am right (there is no way for me to know from reading print--I cannot see your face), but, if you are right, then is that a manifestation of your fruits? If you want me to "run down to the local Catholic Church and Repent" should you not treat me with enough respect to accurately hear what I am saying? How many people do you think were won to Rome by being treated disrespectfully?

Are you judging me to be the unregenerate one, then? See how ludicrous this reasoning is? Are we to judge each other based on some vague idea of “bearing fruitâ€Â? What if we both “bear fruitâ€Â, since this is closer to the truth, then what? Deciding which doctrines are correct based on subjective judging of someone’s “unregenerate heart†and “fruit bearing†is an exercise in lunacy.

Certainly I would agree that the example of Acts 15 is the best way to handle doctrinal disputes.

Wrong. It’s the only Biblical way to handle doctrinal disputes within the Church.

Not only that, but I would suggest that since the council of Jerusalem was enscripturated, it is an infallible decision. I would even agree that it was a part of the oral Kurgma of the apostolic Church. I do not agree that the propositions of Acts 15 and 16 demonstrate that any and all other Church councils will be dubbed with enscripturated infallibility

This is not to say that I think all Church Councils are wrong. Nicea, Chalcedon, Orange, and the Church councils claim to be right, but I dont see where they claim to be infallible. I think there is a differencen between claiming to be right, and claiming infallibility. The council of Jerusalem was infallible because it was enscripturated. my view of Church Councils. I am sure, being Catholic, you will disagree, but I do not see it proposed in Acts 15 or 16 that all or any other councils will be infallible.

Nice try. Infallibility has nothing to do with the model that is being shown in acts 15 and 16. This is an historical event that shows the normal operation of the Apostolic Church. I’ll ask again, why didn’t the Church in Antioch simply consult Scripture and come to the decision by themselves? Why did they find it necessary to consult the Church at Jerusalem?

The sentence came from Deuteronomy 13:3.
...thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or unto that dreamer of dreams: for Jehovah your God proveth you, to know whether ye love Jehovah your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

Now the hypothetical situation I raised concerned a man in Jeremiahs time. Jeremiah 2:8 tells us of the Nation of Israel apostatizing and all the leaders going against God.
Jer 2:8 The priests said not, Where is Jehovah? and they that handle the law knew me not: the rulers also transgressed against me, and the prophets prophesied by Baal, and walked after things that do not profit.

So then, the idea is that we have competing theologies.

Where? What competing theologies are you referring to? There were COMPETING GODS. These apostate prophets were not disagreeing on a point of doctrine, they were worshiping false gods! How can you possibly equate honest churchmen attempting to come to the truth of a difficult doctrine with apostate prophets working "signs and wonders" in the name of a false god? Deuteronomy 13, read in context, refers to prophets whose prophecies come to pass, and they claim that it’s by the power of false gods. Verses 1-3 “"If a prophet arises among you, or a dreamer of dreams, and gives you a sign or a wonder, 2 and the sign or wonder which he tells you comes to pass, and if he says, `Let us go after other gods,' which you have not known, `and let us serve them,' 3 you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or to that dreamer of dreams; for the LORD your God is testing you, to know whether you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.†As you can plainly see, God is testing them by seeing if they will follow signs and wonders of flashy prophets, as opposed to HIM.

These false prophets are not discussing theological issues, they are worshipping a completely different god.

Soooooo... when in Jeremiah's day, the Priests apostatized, and the prophets followed after Baal, how did the believer identify a correct theology? They went back to Deuteronomy 13 and were able to notice that the prophets of the establishment in Jerusalem were following after Baal.

How on earth do you know that? Where does scripture or any historical record show that believers "went back to Deuteronomy 13 and were able to notice that the prophets of the establishment in Jerusalem were following after Baal" Chapter and verse, please.

Now I do not know what you are thinking. It seems to be a muddle of inserting your concepts of infallible Church councils into every situation.

Where have I even mentioned any Church council but the one in Jerusalem? If you want to know the definition of "muddled" look at your attempt at forcing the doctrine of Sola-Scriptura on Judiaism.

So what is the magisterium in Jeremiahs day? Is it these prophets of Baal in Jerusalem, and the priests who knew not the law.

LOL...And you come to this conclusion...How??? A little anti-Catholic bias, maybe?

"All vegatables are good to eat and profitable for muscles, for eyesight and for stamina when working, so that the person may be complete, fully equipped for a good day's work."

Did I just tell you to become a veggan? To eat NOTHING but vegatables? Or did I tell you to SUPPLIMENT your diet with vegatables?

You told me more then to supplement my diet with vegetables. You told me that vegetables are sufficient for muscles, eyesight and working. You said I would be fully equipped for a good days work. If that is true, what else do I need other then vegetables? I actually need nothing more for a good days work, right?

And this discussion is over, thank you for proving my point. Where did I say vegetables were SUFFICIENT? You read that word into both 2 Tim. and my quote. The word in both is "profitable" (In 2Tim. Greek: Ã…Âphelimos, which means ONLY profitable). This is a blatant example of BIAS. You come into Scripture with a preconcieved idea that all doctrine is contained in it, then twist Scripture to fit your own personal doctrines.

Coming full circle, this is why there are so many differing theologies. As Paidion so eloquently put it: "Many or most Christians have been brought up with a world view which, by osmosis, they absorbed from their family and/or church. Naturally they are going to approach the Scriptures with these biases."

 

[francisdesales]

Francisdesales,
I like your attitude in regards to the lost, because it shows a benevolence aspect to your understanding of our God for all people. This is something I struggled with first as an Arminian then as a Calvinist in respect to an all loving God. I think I have found solace in the Universalist position. The reason I make mention at all, of your comment, is that I do not believe any of us are saved by our exemplary behavior, it is solely on the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to our stead. With that said, if God is not working obviously in our lives then we need to examine our salvation (Eph. 2:10, Phil. 2:13 and 2 Cor. 13:5). If one were to say that the heathen or pagan’s ability to love others is from God, I would concur, but only a knowledge and relationship with the risen Saviour actually saves anyone and that is of grace not works.
Blessings, Bubba

Bubba,

Thank you, but it is not just my attitude, but what the Church teaches when the issue of "invincible ignorance" is brought up. While I understand you search for the truth in various man-made structures as Calvinism and Universalism, only the Church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth because of the Spirit of God. No, we don't go to heaven because of our work, because ALL of our work can be, in some way, attributed to God's grace. We cannot do good without God, but that doesn't mean that God doesn't expect us to utilize His good gifts and rewards us with eternal life. Remember, eternal life is ALWAYS seen as conditional in Scriptures. It is given freely, but never without cost...

Now, in case some are confused on the Church's stance on what you have brought up, some quotes from Vatican 2...

This missionary activity derives its reason from the will of God, "who wishes all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, Himself a man, Jesus Christ, who gave Himself as a ransom for all" (1 Tim. 2:45), "neither is there salvation in any other" (Acts 4:12). Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door. Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it." Therefore though God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him (Heb. 11:6), yet a necessity lies upon the Church (1 Cor. 9:16), and at the same time a sacred duty, to preach the Gospel. And hence missionary activity today as always retains its power and necessity. Ad Gentes, p/o #7

--------
Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God. In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh. On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues. But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things, and as Saviour wills that all men be saved. Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel. She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator. Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, "Preach the Gospel to every creature", the Church fosters the missions with care and attention. Lumen Gentium, 16

--------------
The Christian man, conformed to the likeness of that Son Who is the firstborn of many brothers, received "the first-fruits of the Spirit" (Rom. 8:23) by which he becomes capable of discharging the new law of love. Through this Spirit, who is "the pledge of our inheritance" (Eph. 1:14), the whole man is renewed from within, even to the achievement of "the redemption of the body" (Rom. 8:23): "If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the death dwells in you, then he who raised Jesus Christ from the dead will also bring to life your mortal bodies because of his Spirit who dwells in you" (Rom. 8:11). Pressing upon the Christian to be sure, are the need and the duty to battle against evil through manifold tribulations and even to suffer death. But, linked with the paschal mystery and patterned on the dying Christ, he will hasten forward to resurrection in the strength which comes from hope.

All this holds true not only for Christians, but for all men of good will in whose hearts grace works in an unseen way. For, since Christ died for all men, and since the ultimate vocation of man is in fact one, and divine, we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery.
Gaudium et Spes, p/o #22

-----------
Regards

 

[Bubba]

Francisdesales,
I have a couple who attend a Bible study at my house who are also Roman Catholic (as I was once, thus Arminian then), and they equate the Vatican 2 with Universal salvation for all. After reading the quotes you gave I can readily understand why they reason as they do. In regards to my own universal beliefs, I did not come to this position easily and now that I am there, I would encourage you to not dismiss to quickly the position’s validity. I placed a comment in the Debate section under “Purgatory†if you are so incline.
Peace, Bubba

 

[francisdesales]

Francisdesales,
I have a couple who attend a Bible study at my house who are also Roman Catholic (as I was once, thus Arminian then)

Oops... Catholics are not Arminians... There are heretical components in Arminianism as in Calvinism with regards to free will, grace, and predestination.

and they equate the Vatican 2 with Universal salvation for all.

Wrongly. I have provided enough snippets of Vatican 2 to show that salvation is not universal. It is universally OFFERED, but NOT universally ACCEPTED. Clearly, the Bible tells us that some reject Christ's offer...

After reading the quotes you gave I can readily understand why they reason as they do.

These posts are not "universal salvation for all". That is incorrect interpretations of the Vatican counciliar documents, which clearly state that rejecting God is a rejection of salvation. Furthermore, in Ad Gentes, for example, the missionary role of the Church points to the NECESSITY of evangelization, something that would be clearly unnecessary if the Gospel ordinarily is taught without the Church and by the Spirit alone. No doubt, the Spirit can and does, but this is in the arena where the Church CANNOT preach to, which I have given examples of already, such as the Western Hemisphere before Catholicism reached the shores of America...

In regards to my own universal beliefs, I did not come to this position easily and now that I am there, I would encourage you to not dismiss to quickly the position’s validity. I placed a comment in the Debate section under “Purgatory†if you are so incline.
Peace, Bubba

Peace, Bubba, but I remain unconvinced on "salvation freely given for all". Salvation is ALWAYS conditional, based upon the faith of the recipient.

I happen to be reading the Apocalypse of John, and there is no indication of such an idea that all will be saved. Rather than focusing on Matthew 5-7 and "loving your enemies, et. al", you should consider the WHOLE Gospel. You are erecting a "canon within a canon". The Scriptures show a much broader picture of God, part of which IS a picture of a passionate God dealing punishment and vengeance upon those who reject Him and persecute His People. Yes, God loves all, even allowing the evil to repent (as "Jesus" tells the Church at Thyatira regarding "Jezabel"), but in the end, what is the fate of those who do NOT? Only those who persevere, over and over, are told they will receive the rewards of eternal life (in seven different ways).

Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not. Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works. But unto you I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine, and which have not known the depths of Satan, as they speak; I will put upon you none other burden. But that which ye have already hold fast till I come. And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations: And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father. And I will give him the morning star. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches. Rev 2:20-29

Such is love. Love is passionate and cannot stand such treatment of the beloved.

As to Purgatory, that thread has been locked.

Regards