Just thinking that if i had a guy who was the
maker of everything in my world... in this way He was holding everything
together... and He came to me and told me that He loved everyone the
same... only that He loved me like He loved the world... and I was told
that He would not act like He loved me in a personal sense ... only as
He was using me to love the world... then my reaction would be that i
could only depend upon Him in being loved like a reprobate. But if He
told me that He loved me before I was born... and He chose to love me
not because of me... but because He loved me freely... then i would know
that He loved me in the sense that He set me apart as a special object
of His love... even tho He did not decide to love the others like me...
because His love is not according to anything that is in a dependent
way. So that this would convince me that He loves me personally and
freely by what He did. I know Jesus is very exclusive... like being in
the house and not having the experience of being outside. Its not a
general love at all.
| 5092
|
Forums / Theology Forum / Re: predestination
|
on: April 29, 2009, 06:54:54 AM
|
Thor.... you are always trying to define my
position .... putting words in my mouth that i have never said. In all
of the times we have disagreed , i have said that liberty of the will is
the action as the proof of choice... its not almost a choice or from a
command that has no real reason or cause to be obeyed. You are giving me
all of these passages where there are clear commands ... but you are
not presenting the other part where the bible describes salvation in
clear terms. Your antonym is not two ideas of the same nature... but
with a little more investigation you present an argument from the
premise of two concepts that are contradictory. The moment one acts from
his love for something then that person is worthy of praise or on the
other hand... expressing the corruption of that choice and is worthy of
blame. There is nothing worthy of being in the position where two things
are available for one to choose. That is no choice at all. There is no
expression of choice in representing freedom ... as the bible clearly
represents not as you say. The bible never says that man has the ability
in himself to choose God. True freedom is expressed when one is
choosing because he is most pleased to have that thing over the other
thing. In order for a person to respond to a command he expresses his
freedom in obeying that command because he is most pleased with the
object. There is no freedom in equilibrium. There is no choice at all.
Equilibrium is your view that a man has the ability in himself prior to
the command.... to obey that command.On the other hand you are saying
that the Holy Spirit gives the man the ability. But you are saying that
if the man does not possess the ability in himself before the act then
he is not expressing free choice. What i am saying is that a man cannot
express free choice since he does not have the desire to obey in
himself... the Holy Spirit must work the desire in him prior to his
obedience.... so that i am agreeing with you that the Holy Spirit works
in man... but i acknowledging the worthiness of the Holy Spirits work in
the free act. May i say that your position makes man a robot to
chance...excuses....and being without blame? Or... yes i know its all a
mystery...being blinded to common sense and cause means and effect.....
God is not given us the necessary facts to understand how we possibly
could be subject to such corruption. After all ... we hold a little
goodness in our contingent god.
| 5085
|
Forums / Main Forum / Re: Catholic Question about John 6
|
on: April 30, 2009, 02:25:25 PM
|
Heres the problem.... God is defining the way
He is to be worshiped....and if He is not worshiped according to His
way... then that other worship is going to lead to apostasy. Thats why
there is the second commandment about images. 4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5
You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your
God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers
to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing
love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my
commandments.
|
5061
|
Forums / Main Forum / Re: The Eucharist : William Webster
|
on: May 03, 2009, 03:55:00 PM
|
Ok
this is going to be short .. eating something fir lunch no pun
intended ... but this whole concept in the understanding of grace and
how it relates to atonement and the meta physical working as to how God
has revealed Himself through the cross ... as a message of grace ... is
related to blameworthiness and the act of the will in its causes and
effects ... is like trying to explain in a method of this substitution
toward us... as not bringing in a secret scheme to change how God is
seen as to how we view ourselves. So there is need for further
explanation.. I know... understand or clear as mud?
Reminds me of something Socrates said:
Now,
to tell what sort of thing the soul is would require an absolutely
superhuman and lengthy narrative; but an account of what it is like will
be briefer and within the range of human capability. Let us then take
the latter course.
(Phaedrus, 246)
I suppose
my suggestion would be similar: To try to "explain in a method of this
substitution toward us" would require an absolutely superhuman and
lengthy narrative; but an account of what it is LIKE will be briefer and
within the range of human capability. In other words, try to tell me
what this difficult thing you are trying to explain is like. Do what
Jesus often did: Give me a simple metaphor to which i can compare this
difficult idea. Help me see what you see by way of example.
Well
something that comes to mind as a start would be that at the time sin
was committed in the garden then either God could have made His Son the
offspring of Eve and died for the sins of the ot saints and the whole
world... it would have been the best argument for the just consequence
of mans sin and Christ crucifixion. It would have been swift punishment.
I mean if that was the main focus of the atonement. Now then since all
of this transpired in the events of history then God had a plan and
purpose that was much bigger than simply blaming man and crucifying His
Son because of that sin.
|
 Remove
 Reply
 Quote
 Notify
|
|
|
5062
|
Forums / Main Forum / Re: The Eucharist : William Webster
|
on: May 03, 2009, 03:44:54 PM
|
Maybe
since you are presenting the doctrine... that we can get some of the
original teaching so ...its my habit over the yrs here to present a
teaching in the form of a book ... many books... that is mainly my
position... i mean if you have this Unitarian mentality i am sure there
are teachers that you ascribe to. Plus you got the catholic ency...
totally free and i think i will introduce the teaching in order to make a
more clear distinction. As you know... or if you havent seen... if an
idea is slanted or false as to the doctrines of grace i can give you the
Truth. I am not sure what you are saying... i guess i am asking you to
present the truth... i mean some of your questions are so open ended
that ... well... i understand you are playing the question man...
Socrates ... i like that too... ok whats next?Is it a question or a
statement of fact.... i think the Socratic form is stating facts as well
as questions?
The thing about books is that they suffer from the same defect from which photographs suffer. Don't you agree?
It
depends upon the approach in the contents of the book....if its
exegesis of the text ....along with a pastoral encouragement and
experiential truth then the book has some weight. The revealed things
are for us and our children. In other words if i were given the choice
between a contaminated piece of bread or a steak that had bacteria ..
you know what would be worth my time. The main things are plain and
understandable. No one could be saved otherwise.
|
|
Remove
Reply
Quote
Notify
|
|
|
5066
|
Forums / Main Forum / Re: The Eucharist : William Webster
|
on: May 03, 2009, 01:39:19 PM
|
First
of all ... i believe you are trying to put the focus on the things of
salvation and take it away from the Person of Christ.
Please explain what gave you that idea.
Soc...
let me go back over the other thread... maybe my accusation about you
... i mean .. i really dont know what your theology is....
calvinistic... semi plagianism or plagianism... can you explain if you
believe that you are in the middle .. and its a mystery... which then
that lack of preciseness will define to me your position.... or what i
think you are Wesleyan... or a mixture of Unitarianism with two line....
i mean... i can look at a teaching and dissect the points of
difference... which i invite you to share the catholic ency. over the
teaching of the Eucharist. My intention is to get to the entire teaching
at some point. As i am a bit different because i believe that
anything less than the solas is a kind of idol worship. ...self... the
thing... theological dualism.... etc.
I think you
misunderstand my position. My position is that i don't have a
position. I'm simply trying out different ideas to see what fits the
truth because i'm uncertain of what the truth is. At the moment i'm
suggesting that Jesus was pointing out the fact that unless the human
race kills Him, there would be no chance for its redemption. That's
what He might have meant when He said that they would eat His flesh and
drink His blood. At least, that's what those words meant in the Old
Testament--words that would have been familiar to His audience who was
hearing much preaching about the coming savior who would eat the flesh
and drink the blood of (or defeat) the Roman occupiers.
Is
it your intention to move to the idea of the Eucharist being immolated
in practice? I mean.... its really not us who crucified Him... The
Father was pleased to crush the Son... and the Son was pleased to do the
Fathers will... with perfect worthiness... there really was nothing to
prove for Himself in the presence of the Father in light of His
substitution for us.... He did it strickly for us...Soc... its the wrong
focus.... its like arguing from the lesser for the sake of the
greater.
|
|
Remove
Reply
Quote
Notify
|
|
|
5067
|
Forums / Main Forum / Re: The Eucharist : William Webster
|
on: May 03, 2009, 01:26:58 PM
|
First
of all ... i believe you are trying to put the focus on the things of
salvation and take it away from the Person of Christ.
Please explain what gave you that idea.
Soc...
let me go back over the other thread... maybe my accusation about you
... i mean .. i really dont know what your theology is....
calvinistic... semi plagianism or plagianism... can you explain if you
believe that you are in the middle .. and its a mystery... which then
that lack of preciseness will define to me your position.... or what i
think you are Wesleyan... or a mixture of Unitarianism with two line....
i mean... i can look at a teaching and dissect the points of
difference... which i invite you to share the catholic ency. over the
teaching of the Eucharist. My intention is to get to the entire teaching
at some point. As i am a bit different because i believe that
anything less than the solas is a kind of idol worship. ...self... the
thing... theological dualism.... etc.
|
|
Remove
Reply
Quote
Notify
|
|
|
5068
|
Forums / Main Forum / Re: The Eucharist : William Webster
|
on: May 03, 2009, 01:00:23 PM
|
|
Tertullian (155/160-240/250 A.D.) spoke of the
bread and wine in the eucharist as symbols or figures which represent
the body and blood of Christ. He specifically stated that these were not
the literal body and blood of the Lord. When Christ said, ‘This is my
body,’ Tertullian maintained that Jesus was speaking figuratively and
that he consecrated the wine ‘in memory of his blood’ (Against Marcion
3.19). Some theologians have claimed that the ancient usage of the words
‘figure’ and ‘represent’ suggested that the symbols in some mysterious
way became what they symbolized. But Tertullian uses the word
‘represent’ in a number of other places where the word carries a
figurative meaning. For example, in Against Marcion 4.40 he says, ‘He
represents the bleeding condition of his flesh under the metaphor of
garments dyed in red.’ His interpretation of John 6 similarly indicates
that when he spoke of the bread and wine as figures and symbols of
Christ’s body and blood, that is exactly what he meant.6 He says that
Christ spoke in spiritual terms when referring to the eating of his
flesh and drinking of his blood and did not mean this literally. He
holds that the eating of the flesh of Christ and the drinking of his
blood means appropriating him by faith: ‘He likewise called His flesh by
the same appellation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, we ought
therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour
Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to
digest Him by faith.’7 Clearly he did not teach the concept of
transubstantiation.
Clement of Alexandria (150-211/216 A.D.) also
called the bread and wine symbols of the body and blood of Christ, and
taught that the communicant received not the physical but the spiritual
life of Christ.8 Origen (185-253/254 A.D.), likewise, speaks in
distinctively spiritual and allegorical terms when referring to the
eucharist.
Eusebius of Caesarea (263-340 A.D.) identified the
elements with the body and blood of Christ but, like Tertullian, saw the
elements as being symbolical or representative of spiritual realities.9
He specifically states that the bread and wine are symbols of the
Lord’s body and blood and that Christ’s words in John 6 are to be
understood spiritually and figuratively as opposed to a physical and
literal sense.
As time passed clearer descriptions of the
eucharist as the transformation of the elements into the literal body
and blood of Christ emerged in the writings of Fathers such as Cyril of
Jerusalem, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory Nazianzen, Chrysostom and Ambrose.
Gregory of Nyssa, for example, taught that the eucharist was the
perpetuation of the incarnation and similarly Cyril of Jerusalem adopted
a highly literal approach:
|
|
Remove
Reply
Quote
Notify
|
|
|
5069
|
Forums / Main Forum / Re: The Eucharist : William Webster
|
on: May 03, 2009, 12:23:02 PM
|
First of all ... i believe you are trying to
put the focus on the things of salvation and take it away from the
Person of Christ. I have disagreed with you in the other thread because
you have quoted one verse over and over again but taken it out of its
context of how the bible presents the distinction between Christ divine
nature and His human nature.Through out the gospels there is this
distinction that is consistent in the text ... in the context of the
working out of these two distinct realities and yet although they are
side by side... yet they are never mixed.... the divine nature is never
mixed with the human nature. And then when we come to the text that
follows this same paradigm as it is presented in the gospels ... then i
believe you are not offering a context to that verse... so it does no
good to repeat one verse without the context of the rest of scripture.
My position is that when He offers His flesh and blood then He is
offering Himself as human... not in parts... not an eternal flesh... but
a distinct aspect of His hypo stasis. ...un mixed and yet just as they
saw the miracles then the analogy of faith would be the healing from the
disease of sin... so they heard Him offering Himself as a sacrifice as
distinguishing Him just as a phantom in the analogy of faith. Yet your
argument is that this one time His flesh becomes divine and He offers it
as eternally present... without any context to support your difference
with me. And in doing this you are making the images the focus so that
the analogy of believing becomes secondary to the appearance of
righteousness. But go ahead... you have every rite to express your
opinion. Whether you believe in the Eucharist or you are confused by the
teaching... or you are making a distinction about the differences that
you have with the Catholic church and taking the elements in a worthy
manner... yet as in keeping with the reformation of biblical
interpretation that the bible is all we need to understand every part
... then intruding other interpretations to a verse without the context
... is introducing a philosophy as equal with the context.. and in my
opinion you are offering an idol. Soc... i offer to you the truth ...
there is nothing new under the sun. This article will put the historical
context on what you want to know.... i hope we can continue this
dialogue. 
|
5076
|
Members Only / Purgatory / Re: Church or not the Church..debate # ?
|
on: May 01, 2009, 07:50:20 PM
|
These arguments on whether we should condemn
all churches or a few.... what the proper amount of programs should
be... if the church is teaching legalism.... if church buildings are
inherently evil.... the difference between small churches and big
ones.... all the bad experiences we have encountered... etc ... All of
this in my opinion is like arguing over whether the drapes in the church
should be green or blue. The truth is that the doctrinal approach is
what defines the kind of church as to how effective it will be in the
growth and the closeness to the spirit of encouragement that will become
the mark of the function of its members. People do not naturally just
fall in line or get along in a church. Thats why communication as to the
incorporation of a testimonial epistemology is not going to produce
agreements on the direction of a church should take. Everyone comes with
a spiritual experience as a way to find some kind of unity, solidarity
... and encouragement... but that is not going to create the fundamental
source of agreement. We can be encouraged in the Spirit but we also can
give our opinions about our experience for as they are as different as
the kinds of colors in creation.And in the end they are very
undependable as the changing of the wind. The only way we are going
to have a strong and sure foundation of unity is by the agreement of
doctrine. Christian unity is Christ likeness. Christ likeness is formed
in us as we grow in Christ. We grow in Christ as we are being changed
into Christ. We are changed into Christ by His revelation to us. Our
focus is on Christ through His word. At some point we must find our
unity in our corporate understanding of Christ. Just like you eat your
food and you grow... you study the doctrines and you grow. Now then the
only real and deepening of the experience of unity is through the
matured understanding of Christ and the agreement we have with one
another about Christ. Christ is the head of the church. We fix our
thoughts on Christ because He is the Son of God who rules over His
church. We learn how to treat one another when we have a proper view of
the work of Christ as He came as our brother and teaches us to get along
like a heavenly family since He is our apostle and high priest.There
are visible things and there is practical problems that arise with our
being in this world. Our problem is not to have our practical problems
fixed first but to learn how to get along in the family of God. Then by
our relation to our big brother we will treat each other as our
brothers. I am rambling but this Hebrews focus i am in is really
awesome.
|
5079
|
Forums / Main Forum / Re: Catholic Question about John 6
|
on: May 01, 2009, 04:59:25 PM
|
From the New Advent Encyclopedia. "that
He possessed, as Almighty God-man, a power superior to and independent
of the laws of nature, and could, therefore, provide such a supernatural
food, none other, in fact, than His own Flesh and Blood.""Consequently, eating and drinking are to be understood of the actual partaking of Christ in person, hence literally.""The
second and more scientific explanation asserts that in the Scriptural
opposition of "flesh and blood" to "spirit", the former always signifies
carnal-mindedness, the latter mental perception illumined by faith, so
that it was the intention of Jesus in this passage to give prominence to
the fact that the sublime mystery of the Eucharist can be grasped in
the light of supernatural faith alone, whereas it cannot be understood
by the carnal-minded, who are weighed down under the burden of sin." Now here they are saying that only the spiritually minded person accepts the literal meaning. "Now,
the glorified Christ, Who "dieth now no more" (Romans 6:9) has an
animate Body through whose veins courses His life's Blood under the
vivifying influence of soul. Consequently, together with His Body and
Blood and Soul, His whole Humanity also, and, by virtue of the
hypostatic union, His Divinity, i.e. Christ whole and entire, must be
present. Hence Christ is present in the sacrament with His Flesh and
Blood, Body and Soul, Humanity and Divinity."So what
they are saying is that the partaker takes in His divinity... the actual
glory of Christ... now that is in my mind a heresy.
|
5082
|
Members Only / Purgatory / Re: Church or not the Church..debate # ?
|
on: May 01, 2009, 12:09:22 PM
|
Calvin says that we are an idol
factory.....now how can a christian manufacture idols when he hasnt made
one out of wood and stone? He can love something so much that he is
like whatever he loves. In other words a person can imagine something
that makes them think feel and act like a machine.That is ... idolatry
is putting something before God so that your desires do not center of
Christ. Just because you have religious activities does not mean your
heart is going to change. That is why a good thing can become an idol.
Most of the OT is filled with physical things that were part of the
worship of Gods people. The problems were not related to the practice of
the usage of these things that were required in the worship of God...
the problem was that they began to worship the physical things in place
of God. Thats why God declared that He was tired of their
offerings.... those things that were required to worship God... they
were a stench in His nostrils. Why because their desires were set on
other idols in their private worship and they were bringing their sinful
practices into the worship of God. God knows their hearts... only the
remnant was seeking God for God in the sense that the idols were
imaginary but not the love for other gods and not for those things that
were required. Thats why when David danced in His ephod in the middle of
Israel as they were bringing the ark of the covenant back into
Jerusalem that it was acceptable worship because God loves a heart that
is panting after Him... so that Davids heart was not divided while he
was dancing before the Lord. Over and over there were only one thing
repeated throughout the Psalms..... I hate idols... and even i hate
those who worship idols.... it is the center of the expression of anger
that leads to all kinds of evil in a society. That is why in any society
church or secular ... this is very serious because it determines the
kinds of relationships that one is going to encounter.
| 5085
|
Forums / Main Forum / Re: Catholic Question about John 6
|
on: April 30, 2009, 02:25:25 PM
|
|
Heres the problem.... God is defining the way
He is to be worshiped....and if He is not worshiped according to His
way... then that other worship is going to lead to apostasy. Thats why
there is the second commandment about images.
4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5
You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your
God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers
to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing
love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my
commandments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment