The desire to be accurate--please participate

[CDHealy]

That's the trouble.  I did read it.

Reply 154

CD

Mdd344 is guilty of making up his own Gospel which is not the Gospel God gave to the world.  Mdd344 cannot be saved by such a Gospel.

If mdd344 were much less willful in his rejection of the Gospel, if he were more humble and willing to be taught by the unified witness of the Church, I might have a different view of the matter.  But mdd344 has given a sustained, public and willful rejection of the Gospel.  If he will be saved, it will take a public and free repentence.

Then you are not understanding it.

[LoudLove]

For you to take the position that you have or the Orthodox Church has such a corner on Truth that to disagree with certain of those doctrines is to exclude oneself from the ranks of "Christians" and that one "cannot be saved by such a Gospel" is not only surprising, it is appalling.

Oddly and interestingly, you and Mike  have the same view of your doctrines: "follow my views (and the views of the Orthodox Church/Memphis School of Preaching) or you are not a 'Christian.'

I have made clear my rejection of Mike's attitude.  I do the same with yours.  Nothing personal on my part toward either of you.  I just find such an attitude inconsistent with what religion should be.  Such a view is incompatible with my views on man's ability to discern anything more than the bare outlines of God's Truth and incompatible with my views on man's tendency to think that whatever he subscribes to in religion, politics, or how to boil an egg is the One True Way Written In The Stars.

Jim W.

Sorry CD but sometimes your posts do come off like the Othordox way is the only way.

[mdd344]

The only attitude is that CD believes, based on his understanding of truth, that I don't have it. I believe, based on my understanding of the Bible, he doesn't either.

It is not a bad attitude to let someone know that. If such were the case, Christ would have had a bad attitude, and all of the faithful of the first century.

I did not perceive a bad attitude in CD. And for ONE he has actual evidence to use to make his claims (even though I disagree with it). I think the attitude is only a problem WHEN one makes a blanket assertion with NO evidence.

[mdd344]

Sorry CD but sometimes your posts do come off like the Othordox way is the only way.

There is nothing wrong with him viewing it that way is there? No matter if he is right or wrong, what is the problem?

[Mere Nick]

That's the trouble.  I did read it.

Reply 154

CD

Mdd344 is guilty of making up his own Gospel which is not the Gospel God gave to the world.  Mdd344 cannot be saved by such a Gospel.

If mdd344 were much less willful in his rejection of the Gospel, if he were more humble and willing to be taught by the unified witness of the Church, I might have a different view of the matter.  But mdd344 has given a sustained, public and willful rejection of the Gospel.  If he will be saved, it will take a public and free repentence.

Then you are not understanding it.

I don't understand how saying "a sustained, public and willful rejection of the Gospel" is anything other that a statement of condemnation.  

Perhaps you could start a thread explaining the hope one may find in such a rejection.

[CDHealy]

The problem, Mere Nick, is equating present-day rejection of the Gospel as tantamount to condemnation to, as one really stupid and ignorant thread title puts it: the gaping maw of hell.

[Mere Nick]

The problem, Mere Nick, is equating present-day rejection of the Gospel as tantamount to condemnation to, as one really stupid and ignorant thread title puts it: the gaping maw of hell.

So there's hope in rejecting the gospel?

[mdd344]

Even if that were what it is, or even if it were the idea of 'lost forever,' it is still not CD who, in his mind, is making that determination. It would be God, whether now or later. I don't have any problem with CD saying such. And I hope people are learning that it is not wrong to take a stand that has obvious implications based on what one believes. Wasn't that rule 1.3?

[Jimbob]

Gary referred to 1.5, not 1.3.  CD can argue the doctinal aspects all he wants as long as he wants.  The problem Gary pointed to is that he referred to you by name and drew the conclusion that you don't hold to the Christian faith.  That's against 1.5. 

Really, guys, this is not that hard.

[mdd344]

CD,
Don't miss my post to you on the last page. And, if you want to take out he part of your post that people are referring to, it is fine by me.

[normfromga]

Yes
No

[LoudLove]

I think the attitude is only a problem WHEN one makes a blanket assertion with NO evidence.

You might want to remember that when you make "blanket" statements about Baptists and members of this board.

[SFH]

Mike:
You usually get what you ask for, even if it is not what you want.
When you let God be who is IS and will ALWAYS be.....
then and only then do you have a chance to see the REAL Truth.
I continue to pray for you.

[Bon Voyage]

CD,

I believe your post violates 1.5 of the Forum Rules.

IMHO that rule needs to be dropped and people around here nedd to get a little more thick skinned. CD and Mike have been respectful with each other even when they question each others belieefs and how that may effect their salvation.

Mike can say all day long Im bound for hell becasue of my beliefs so could CD or anyone. Doesnt bother me casue last I checekd they werent god.

It isn't my rule to drop or not drop.  I am trying to be consistent so I am not labeled as "biased."

[LoudLove]

CD,

I believe your post violates 1.5 of the Forum Rules.

IMHO that rule needs to be dropped and people around here nedd to get a little more thick skinned. CD and Mike have been respectful with each other even when they question each others belieefs and how that may effect their salvation.

Mike can say all day long Im bound for hell becasue of my beliefs so could CD or anyone. Doesnt bother me casue last I checekd they werent god.

It isn't my rule to drop or not drop.  I am trying to be consistent so I am not labeled as "biased."

I know Gary and I think you are doing a good job at being fair. I was just expressing my opinon which isnt worth much.

[Mere Nick]

Now, now LL. Everyone's opinon's are worth something!

But will it buy okra?

[mdd344]

CD,
I really can't believe how far you go with some of this. In the first place, while forgiveness is in view in the first of that chapter, it is not in the verse I gave. The disciples said 'increase our faith' and Jesus did with other things. The forgiveness part was over. How in the world would you put forgiveness in 17:10? What would it mean?



Second, you said,

But nothing we do requires God to save us.  Nor could any of our acts save us.  Nor do our acts by themselves enable God’s grace.  Indeed, it is God’s grace that enables our free choice and free acts to so choose and act.  It is God’s grace that gives us existence and personhood in the first place.  We are nothing apart from God’s grace, even when we reject his grace for eternity, that very same grace still enables our existence, is still extended toward us and still loves and enables our freely willed choices and acts, which he, in grace, ratifies for forever.

I don't know that I have ever read anything more confusing. Where is the Scripture to back it up? I readily agree that our actions do not 'earn' salvation. But I disagree that our acts have no part in it because God said 'what we must do' to be saved. When we 'do' (obey God) we are merely doing what God said to do and God said 'do this and you'll be saved by my grace.' You mix in some Calvinism here when you say that 'grace enables our free choice and free acts.' At least I think that is what I see. But no matter, my point was that God said 'do this and be saved' and I can 'do it and be saved' all by grace.

Do you deny that about what God said one must do to be saved? Sounds like one has access to grace by living by faith doesn' t it? Do you think that statement there is accurate?

You said,

Yes, but you do not visibly belong to the Church God established.  This is an objective fact.  Indeed, as of this moment, neither do I.

.

What in the world do you mean? Was the church of the Lord established on the day of Pentecost or not? Was it the kingdom or not? Jesus said the kingdom would come with power (Mark 9:1) and it did (Acts 1-2:4). Those who obeyed the Gospel were translated by God into that kingdom (Col. 1:13) and the kingdom is the body of Christ, i.e. the church (Eph. 1:22-23;5:23f). They were baptized into the one body (1 Cor. 12:13; Gal. 3:27).

Now I know I am a part of that body, in which reside all spiritual blessings, and God tells me I can know it (1 John 5:13; 2 Cor. 13:5; Eph. 1:3). How say you that I am not?

You added,

Where are your bishops (1 Timothy 3)?  Where is your sacrament of the Lord’s Supper (1 Corinthians 10-11)?  Where are your holy synods to clarify doctrines and practices for the whole Church (Acts 15)?  Where is your unbroken historical connection with any apostolically founded Church?

We have elders (same word as bishops) who meet the qualifications given. We have deacons, who meet those qualifications given as well. We partake of the LS every first day of every week. Synods?" Please, give the Bible that says that synods must be in place to tell the people what to believe. The Bible speaks of NO organization such as that.

Also, tell where the Bible says that for a church to be the church of our Lord that it must have unbroken historical connection with the first century church? That isn't in the Bible CD. And what is in the Bible is that the seed of the kingdom IS THE WORD OF GOD (Luke 8:11) and when you plant seed you'll get whatever that seed is everytime, for God has said that each produces after its own kind.

Planting God's seed produces God's plants. As you know, any plant produced which God did not plant will be rooted up in the end (Mat. 15:9f).


You said,

No, you haven’t.  You do not understand the truth about the Holy Trinity, the Incarnation, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and so forth.

And since when is your salvation and the church determined by your understanding?  Who gave you the authority to make any determinations about your own salvation and the Church?

Says you? I believe I do agree with the Bible. The fact that I don't agree with you isn't of any consequence, is it? Isn't it about the Bible? I believe God is three in One as you do. Where is the problem?

Determined by understanding? Didn't Paul say I could examine myself and know whether I was in 'the faith' or not? Why, he did say that (2 Cor. 13:5). I can know by comparing what I did with what God said whether or not I am in a right relationship with God. And so can every person living who is of sound mind!

I am going to ask again, because I have seen much writing and no answers. Why am I, a person who has heard and obeyed the Gospel as God gave it, not a member of the church the Lord promised to add those who heard and obeyed the Gospel to?

Why?

Bump for CD.

[Volkmar]

We are in agreement, CD (maybe we should both mark our calendars?... ;) ).

Isn't this one of the signs of the imminence of the Rapture?  I think I saw it in an appendix in LaHaye's book.  Or was it Lindsey's?

I have refused to read the LaHaye books, so it must have been in Lindsey's...though it was back in '72 or '73 when I read it, so I might be mistaken.

Come to think of it, wouldn't a more powerful sign of the Rapture be CD and Mike agreeing??

Naw, there won't be no Rapture....


V

[CDHealy]

I really can't believe how far you go with some of this. In the first place, while forgiveness is in view in the first of that chapter, it is not in the verse I gave. The disciples said 'increase our faith' and Jesus did with other things. The forgiveness part was over. How in the world would you put forgiveness in 17:10? What would it mean?

When we forgive seventy-times seven, we should see that we are not doing anything especially noteworthy.  We are merely doing what is our duty to do: forgive as Christ forgave.

Second, you said,

But nothing we do requires God to save us.  Nor could any of our acts save us.  Nor do our acts by themselves enable God's grace.  Indeed, it is God's grace that enables our free choice and free acts to so choose and act.  It is God's grace that gives us existence and personhood in the first place.  We are nothing apart from God's grace, even when we reject his grace for eternity, that very same grace still enables our existence, is still extended toward us and still loves and enables our freely willed choices and acts, which he, in grace, ratifies for forever.

I don't know that I have ever read anything more confusing. Where is the Scripture to back it up?

Philippians 2:12-13

I readily agree that our actions do not 'earn' salvation. But I disagree that our acts have no part in it because God said 'what we must do' to be saved. When we 'do' (obey God) we are merely doing what God said to do and God said 'do this and you'll be saved by my grace.'

I never said our acts have no part in our salvation.  You're saying my position is X, when it is really Y.  That's called a straw man.

You mix in some Calvinism here when you say that 'grace enables our free choice and free acts.' At least I think that is what I see. But no matter, my point was that God said 'do this and be saved' and I can 'do it and be saved' all by grace.

Since the theology I have expressed is articulated by St. John Cassian, among other Church Fathers, I'm afraid Calvinism is not the proper descriptive term—unless Calvin lived a thousand years prior than he did.

Do you deny that about what God said one must do to be saved? Sounds like one has access to grace by living by faith doesn' t it?

Not necessarily.

Was the church of the Lord established on the day of Pentecost or not?

Yes.

Was it the kingdom or not?

Yes.

Now I know I am a part of that body, in which reside all spiritual blessings, and God tells me I can know it (1 John 5:13; 2 Cor. 13:5; Eph. 1:3). How say you that I am not?

Because your church does not have direct historical continuity with the Church Christ founded, does not administer the Sacraments, and does not have the full apostolic deposit of the faith.

You added,

Where are your bishops (1 Timothy 3)?  Where is your sacrament of the Lord’s Supper (1 Corinthians 10-11)?  Where are your holy synods to clarify doctrines and practices for the whole Church (Acts 15)?  Where is your unbroken historical connection with any apostolically founded Church?

We have elders (same word as bishops) who meet the qualifications given.

Not the same word, and not the same function.  Do these bishops celebrate the Eucharist and deputize fellow priests to so celebrate the Eucharist?  Is the unity of the local Church symbolized and realized in the ministry and person of the bishop?  Does your bishop act as the representative to other local Churches, and cooperate with other bishops in helping to clarify doctrine and discipline in the face of the challenge of heresies and disputes?

We have deacons, who meet those qualifications given as well.

Have those deacons been ordained by the laying of hands from those in unbroken historical and doctrinal continuity with the Apostles?

We partake of the LS every first day of every week.

Is your Lord's Supper a real, and not "merely

[CDHealy]

Frankly, I  expect more of you.  You supposedly are educated in the classic philosophies as well as in the traditional doctrines of the Christian Church. I assume that somewhere in your studies you have taken a survey course or two that acquainted you with various Christian views and actions of the Absolutist stripe what the proto-Orthodox did to the Gnostics and Arians, what Henry VIII did to the Catholics, what the Catholics did to the Orthodox at Constantinople, what my putative ancestor--Oliver Cromwell-- did to everybody, what the Protestants did to the Mormons at Nauvoo, what the Mormons did to the Protestants at Mountain Meadows----all of them believing they were the "True Christians

[James A. Wyly]

Frankly, I  expect more of you.  You supposedly are educated in the classic philosophies as well as in the traditional doctrines of the Christian Church. I assume that somewhere in your studies you have taken a survey course or two that acquainted you with various Christian views and actions of the Absolutist stripe what the proto-Orthodox did to the Gnostics and Arians, what Henry VIII did to the Catholics, what the Catholics did to the Orthodox at Constantinople, what my putative ancestor--Oliver Cromwell-- did to everybody, what the Protestants did to the Mormons at Nauvoo, what the Mormons did to the Protestants at Mountain Meadows----all of them believing they were the "True Christians

[Jimbob]

So when I see you or Mike proclaim that someone who is a Jesus follower is not a "Christian," including each other,  I recoil.  The general definition of a "christian" is someone who purports to follow Christ.  To narrow it to your own special definition is called, in logic, the "True Scotsman's Fallacy."

Jim W.

manna to you (but not just for the snippet above)

[da525382]

Frankly, I  expect more of you.  You supposedly are educated in the classic philosophies as well as in the traditional doctrines of the Christian Church. I assume that somewhere in your studies you have taken a survey course or two that acquainted you with various Christian views and actions of the Absolutist stripe what the proto-Orthodox did to the Gnostics and Arians, what Henry VIII did to the Catholics, what the Catholics did to the Orthodox at Constantinople, what my putative ancestor--Oliver Cromwell-- did to everybody, what the Protestants did to the Mormons at Nauvoo, what the Mormons did to the Protestants at Mountain Meadows----all of them believing they were the "True Christians

[CDHealy]

Jim:

Your reply is heavy on polemics and short on facts.  You imply that somehow St. Irenaeus' accounts of Gnosticism (and perhaps Hippolytus' as well, and maybe St. Clement's) cannot be trusted--simply because he was one of those nasty victorious proto-Orthodox you carp about who "won" and got to write the history.  But tell me, what substantive mistakes did he make in his accounts of the Gnostics?  What does Nag Hammadi tell us that we didn't know through St. Irenaues?  Pretty close to nill.  Was he polemical?  Yes.  Is there the potential exagerration from emphasis?  No doubt.  Did he in any substantive way falsify Gnostic belief?  The answer is a firm, No.

I can, however, tell you one mistake you make in your account: Gnosticism was not an exclusively Christian philosophy.  There were many diverse non-Christian groups, so to call Gnosticism an important early form of Christianity is to fail to even understand historical Gnosticism.  Yes there were Gnostics who attempted to operate within Christianity, but not all Gnostics did so.  Indeed, Gnosticism, as a whole, was as much a rival to other faiths (Judaism, for example) as it was to Christianity.

Oh, and of course, one should not trust the Orthodox or Catholic account of early Christian history, because . . . well, apparently, only because they were the victors.  This isn't scholarship, Jim, it's naked prejudice.  Instead of damning the Orthodox and Catholic accounts you simply draw attention to your own hypocrisy.

Here's one obvious point: If all the traces of Gnosticism were, by proto-Orthodox attempts, supposedly destroyed, then whence Nag Hammadi?  Sheesh.  Yours is not history, Jim, it's rabid anti-Orthodox/-Catholic fuming.  Oh, sure, you are in academic fashion right now--which, ironically enough, means you all get to write the "history"--but that's all it is: nothing more than ephemeral fashion divorced from the actual facts of the matter.

You might think you avoid the Godwin law by mentioning Stalin, but it's the same thing.  You lose.

Finally, it is just simply objective fact: the Christians throughout history have believed such and such with regard to the Trinity, the Mother of God and the Incarnation.  Stating that mdd344 fails to believe what Christians have always everywhere believed is not some sort of polemical vendetta on my part, it is just objective fact.

Now, mdd344 might actually believe some of the things those "losing" non-proto-Orthodox groups believed, and you are very welcome to demonstrate that mdd344 believed, say, the Gnostic view of the Trinity.  Whether or not that should be the Christian view, however, has been answered.

[Nevertheless]

CD, thank you for explaining in your post to me the why of your beliefs about mdd, but that's not really what I want to know.

Do you think that someone must understand and believe that the Holy Spirit will live inside him in order for Him to do so?  Does ignorance or mistaken belief prevent the indwelling of the Holy Spirit?

I ask because this seems to parallel the belief that one must understand (correctly) all about baptism for it to be valid.

[CDHealy]

Never:

I have to hold in tension two seemingly contradictory truths: we are not saved solely by the content of our knowledge, and yet the truth that animates what we know is saving.

In other words, the sacrament of baptism is not some magic ritual that works regardless of the faith of the participant.  And yet, baptism is efficacious even if the participant doesn't have full knowledge of what the act is about.

Another truth that impacts this paradoxical tension is that we are accountable to various aspects of the faith in ways that are appropriate to who we are, our personal development, and our lived context.  A seven year old Christian is just as accountable to believe that Jesus is God in the flesh as a thirty-seven year old Christian.  But the thirty-seven year old Christian, especially if he is the parent of the seven year old Christian, is accountable to that truth in different ways than is the seven year old Christian.

It is my understanding--though I am willing to be corrected--that mdd344 is not a neophyte Christian (not a new convert) and that he has ministerial/leadership charge of a group of Christians.  Thus while he is not going to be saved based on the degree of depth and technical accuracy of his knowledge of the Trinity, he is accountable to the Christian doctrine of such in ways that a brand new convert who has no pastoral responsibility is not.  This is why I speak to him in the way that I do, with such stark and unvarnished language.

Furthermore, though mdd344 is not going to be saved based on his test scores on an exam on the doctrine of the Trinity, at the same time his willful rejection of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity is something for which he will be held responsible (if, in fact, he does not repent of his error).  Will that willful rejection be eternal destiny damning?  I do not know, for I do not know with which specific parameters of love, justice and mercy God will judge mdd344.

I know that, on a purely objective comparison with what mdd344 says he believes and what Christians have always believed, he does not believe what Christians always believe, so I have no objective means by which I can call him a Christian.  If he is one, God knows, I do not.  If he is one, he is one in direct contradistinction from what Christians have always believe.  That would be confusing to me, to be sure.  But God is not consulting me on the matter.  And well he shouldn't.  My problem is, quite frankly, not that I do not know the core of the Christian faith, but that I do not live it in the way that I should.  It may well be that mdd344 will be ushered into heaven by the merciful God for the content of his heart rather than his head, while I languish eternally damned for the content of my heart and not the content of my head.

This is doubtless a confusing answer to you, but it is necessarily a paradox.

[Nevertheless]

This is doubtless a confusing answer to you, but it is necessarily a paradox.

Actually, it's quite clear.  Thank you for taking the time to explain thoroughly rather than simply give a yes/no/maybe answer.  Life is full of gray, so simple black or white answers are seldom as illuminating as the "paradox".

[James A. Wyly]

Hello CD,

Jim:
...........
I can, however, tell you one mistake you make in your account: Gnosticism was not an exclusively Christian philosophy. There were many diverse non-Christian groups, so to call Gnosticism an important early form of Christianity is to fail to even understand historical Gnosticism. Yes there were Gnostics who attempted to operate within Christianity, but not all Gnostics did so. Indeed, Gnosticism, as a whole, was as much a rival to other faiths (Judaism, for example) as it was to Christianity.

No kidding!  Gorsch!  Wasn't an exclusively Christian phenomenon, huh?  Wow!

Get a grip, CD.  I never said it was.  I have and have read all the Nag Hammadi documents and probably a half dozen books on Gnosticism including the two Pagels books. I have also read a good deal of Irenaeus.  I said Gnosticism was an extremely important branch of Christianity.  I did not say nor imply it was limited to Christianity.

Oh, and of course, one should not trust the Orthodox or Catholic account of early Christian history, because . . . well, apparently, only because they were the victors. This isn't scholarship, Jim, it's naked prejudice. Instead of damning the Orthodox and Catholic accounts you simply draw attention to your own hypocrisy.

Perhaps you would be good enough to expose my hypocrisy to all the world and to me, since I am unable to fathom what you are referring to.  I've never thought that questioning  history as proffered by the Orthodox  made one an automatic hypocrite. 

Here's one obvious point: If all the traces of Gnosticism were, by proto-Orthodox attempts, supposedly destroyed, then whence Nag Hammadi? Sheesh.

I suppose that somewhere in Egypt some Gnostic believer wrapped up many of the old Gnostic manuscripts and managed to bury them in the sands at Nag Hammadi before the proto-Orthodox thought police caught up to him.  Unsheesh.

Yours is not history, Jim, it's rabid anti-Orthodox/-Catholic fuming. Oh, sure, you are in academic fashion right now--which, ironically enough, means you all get to write the "history"--but that's all it is: nothing more than ephemeral fashion divorced from the actual facts of the matter.

As you note, modern research, scholarship, and archeology have not been kind to the Catholic/Orthodox view that in the beginning of the Christian era, God set up a monolithic church, modeled on the Roman state with a Pope in Rome and with about 6 layers of authority between God's Vicar and the layman. (Or in your case with about four Patriarchs at the apex---five with Constantinople.) Instead, they are finding that ancient Christianity was much more localized and more attuned to  local mores and values.  Interestingly, this is much more in line with the traditional Church of Christ view of how things started out than your special-pleading historians would have it.

You might think you avoid the Godwin law by mentioning Stalin, but it's the same thing. You lose.

For those of you who are not as hip and with-it as CD and I, let me explain that "Godwin's Law

[mdd344]

CD,
Just so you know, I will respond to your post to me above soon. I doubt tomorrow, however. But soon. I didn't want you to think I ignored it.

[LoudLove]

Because your church does not have direct historical continuity with the Church Christ founded, does not administer the Sacraments, and does not have the full apostolic deposit of the faith.

What church or chruches fall under these quidelines? Im not sure understand what you are saying here.

[Mere Nick]

For those of you who are not as hip and with-it as CD and I, let me explain that Godwin's Law is a humorous little adage, made up by Mike Godwin in 1990.  It applies to Internet discussions and states: As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

Well, we'll just have to see how long it takes for Nazis and Hitler to be brought up on the fried okra thread, then.  Are there any laws such as this that apply to religious internet discussions and comparisons to the Spanish Inquisition starting up?

[Nevertheless]

Well on this board it seems to be a tie between baptism and IM.

[CDHealy]

Finally, it is just simply objective fact: the Christians throughout history have believed such and such with regard to the Trinity, the Mother of God and the Incarnation. Stating that mdd344 fails to believe what Christians have always everywhere believed is not some sort of polemical vendetta on my part, it is just objective fact.

Once again, you are defining "Christian

[CDHealy]

Because your church does not have direct historical continuity with the Church Christ founded, does not administer the Sacraments, and does not have the full apostolic deposit of the faith.

What church or chruches fall under these quidelines? Im not sure understand what you are saying here.

Any churches which do not have bishops in true apostolic succession (both in history and in doctrine), and which do not have true administration of the sacraments.

[Harold]

You bow to Church organization, I bow to Jesus Christ.

The Catholic/Orthodox Church require conditions, Jesus asks for submission.

FTL

All Things In Christ.