Update 9/1/07
Julia passed away this morning at 7 a.m. Last night, a group of 150 church friends serenaded her. What a wonderful send-off. Julia lived a short life; but, she has touched a thousand lives or so with her faith and her miraculous ability to live beyond her suffering.
Please keep a family friend, Julia, in prayer along with her family and friends. Julia has battled rare thymus cancer valiantly for the last 6 years or so. She is not yet 40, faithful to our Father, and has lived her life despite her pain and problems. In and out of the hospital for years; off to different corners of the world with beloved husband, Mid, when out of the hospital. Living!
Now, she is in ICU and it's not looking good. She's in God's hands, but I covet prayers for a miraculous healing.
Update: They've sent Julia home under hospice care. She ate solid food today for the first time in a week. Thank you for your prayers for her. It's much appreciated.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
A thought....
...brought about by some interesting friends:
Where will the Jews that Hitler tortured and killed be for "eternity?"
They are not believers.
They do not proclaim Jesus as their Lord and Saviour.
When it's suggested that there may not be an "eternal torment" people will ask, "Then where will Hitler end up?"
Seems to me, he might be in heaven for eradicating non-believers; and all of those Jews that suffered and died must surely reside in hell "forever and ever" because of their sin of non-belief.
And, lastly, where is "hell" in the Old Testament?
Where will the Jews that Hitler tortured and killed be for "eternity?"
They are not believers.
They do not proclaim Jesus as their Lord and Saviour.
When it's suggested that there may not be an "eternal torment" people will ask, "Then where will Hitler end up?"
Seems to me, he might be in heaven for eradicating non-believers; and all of those Jews that suffered and died must surely reside in hell "forever and ever" because of their sin of non-belief.
And, lastly, where is "hell" in the Old Testament?
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
I think we did it!!
Here is some more interesting reading on the subject of salvation. We got great input from everyone. . .I'm a poor advocate for the side of the "people" who may or may not be saved. I'm not qualified to do so at this time! CP and KB did great...so did Don and Missy and everyone who participated. We can keep going, of course, but there was something specific I was desperately searching for in starting this dialogue. ** (Scroll down to the** if you're in a hurry!)
Kansas Bob said...
Referring to CP's comment on my comment in Karen's earlier post:I thought it was interesting that CP pointed out that Calvinism is in some respects really Universalism on a much smaller scale because people are seen as powerless ones having no choice in this most important matter.My point in bringing in the timeless perspective is to say that God predestines people based on His foreknowledge (as He is outside of time) of their choices. That said I have to say that my theology is not so narrow that I think that God has a litany of choices that people make but I do think that we are not simply Divine Calvinistic/Universalist Pets ... but I could be wrong ... been wrong before :)
codepoke said...
It's a really slow night in codepokeville, so I hope you'll forgive me if I continue. You know it's a favorite subject of mine, anyway. > My point in bringing in the timeless perspective is to say that God predestines people based on His foreknowledge (as He is outside of time) of their choices.I don't know whether it was clear in my reply to you that I heard and understood your point. Yes, seeing the end from the beginning, God would know at the beginning whom to "choose" to get His eternal will to align with what our human will eventually determined. This just doesn't make enough sense to me, though. And it leaves out God's part in the drama of conversion. God plays an active role in the whole show. The question is, "What role?"> I do think that we are not simply Divine Calvinistic/Universalist Pets You surely remember just how very, very much I loved that post of yours, right? You hit on real gold when you put it out there. You wrote as a purely anti-predestinational post, but it's 100% true. God is looking for lovers, friends, and confidants, not pets. Needless to say, I don't believe being predestined makes me a pet. It's being saved by my free will that could make me a pet! Predestination certainly makes me a child. Do you think I can back that preposterous statement up?Picture a young couple. They can't seem to have any children yet, and are pretty depressed, but one day a dog adopts them (of its own free will.) They keep the dog. The dog gets lonely, so they go out and buy a dog. Now they have two dogs, one of its own free will and one enslaved. One glorious day, though, they discover the young lady will soon be a young mother. Several months later, they have a child. One dog chose them and the other didn't, but neither of them is human. Only the child is human, but the child had no free will in the issue. The child cannot even choose to run away, though both of the pets is free to do so at any time. Just so, as a human, I can choose to "be christian" but what does it mean? It just means I'm hanging out in God's house of my own free will. That makes me one of God's pets. I'm not really a child of God yet, but I'm exercising my free will and calling myself a Christian. Only that which is born of Spirit that is spirit. It is the transformation from dead to alive that matters. It's the point at which we quit being human, and start being spiritual that life begins. We "believe" and are saved the same way a baby cries at birth and everyone rejoices - it's a reflex action to being alive and suddenly surrounded by pneuma. You could say the baby was alive because it breathed and not exactly be wrong, but the life had to come before the breathing. Look at John 3:18 this way. John 3:18He that breathes is alive: but he that breathes not is already dead, because he is not breathing. 3:18He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. It never says that the believing saves. It says the opposite. And yet, we are required to believe. The baby must breathe, and we must believe. If we did not believe, we would quit being alive, but that will never happen. This perspective is the only thing that makes John 1:12,13 make sense:But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. Somehow we all believed without our will being involved. But that's not hard to imagine if we find it was the will of God that gave birth to us so that we could believe. And if that means that we have no more choice in our salvation than a baby has in being born, is that so hard to believe? > but I could be wrong ... been wrong before :) Yeah. Me too. Praise the Lord He accepted us, by whatever means - even if it's yours. :-)
codepoke said...
Karen,> My thoughts are that perhaps those who do not believe, or do the most wicked of things are punished for what may seem like an eternity, but may only be for a time.Have you looked at those 62 uses of the word, eon, Karen? If so, do you not see the same problem I do? The authors use the exact same word to describe how long the dead will be dead as they use to describe how long the living will be alive. For example:Joh 10:28 And I give unto them eternal (eon) life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. The people who want to limit "eon" limit it only in select places that suit a preconceived argument.So, when Matthew says:Mt 13:40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world (eon). He seems to me to say that this age, this eon, will end with the destruction of the tares. In the next eon, there will be only the saved. Or what does this verse mean?Mr 10:30 But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world (eon) to come eternal (eon) life. If eon means a limited time, then the verse is really saying, "... in the age to come you will have life that ends with that age."The Greeks well understood the concept of eternity. And this is the word they used to describe that concept. There is no other word that means "even longer, ageless age." You have "eon" and that's it. The 62 verses make it clear that there are ages that end and ages that do not, and there's no reason within the texts in question to assume that the age of hell in particular is limited. Of course, as I've said before, I believe this age ends, and it ends with the destruction of the unbelievers.
Karen said...
wow...this is all good stuff, I love it.I'm going through your comments. Hmmm. I feel stupid.... :-)CP...what's the point of evangelism if only some are saved? What's the point of spreading the good news if it doesn't apply to some? And, seriously, for me...if we don't have a choice in our salvation, what's the point? I could be talking to God every night, thinking I have a relationship with Him, and BOOM...off to Hades I go after falling into a hole. Frankly, with a God like that...I don't know if I'd want to be with him. I don't think He's like that. What's the point of Jesus sending his disciples out to the Gentiles if salvation is already decided beforehand? The "sent ones" or apostles weren't necessary, and Paul's journeys would be pointless. God would already have instilled the belief in His saved.The problem with free will to believe or not to be saved is that WE are the key to being saved. I agree that it isn't a free will thing, but for different reasons than you state. You say, if I'm understanding, that it's already in our spirit to believe...those of us that might be saved. I say, we do have free will...but we could ALL be saved...because:We aren't saved because we believe....we believe BECAUSE we are saved! Re:"He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."It does indeed sound to me like you have to believe to be saved which is contrary to what you said--you said it was the opposite? If God gave us our belief, or has withheld it in others (Romans 11:8 and Romans 11:32..and Romans 9:)that indeed seems pretty meddlesome--and a very sad set-up.
karen said...
I'm still studying eon. :-)
Kansas Bob said...
CP wrote:You wrote as a purely anti-predestinational post, but it's 100% true.I believe in predestination ... that He predestines us based on his foreknowledge of our choices and actions. Karen wrote:The problem with free will to believe or not to be saved is that WE are the key to being saved.Here in is the rub :) Calvinists(and others) believe so much in the depravity of man that they MUST exclude man when they think about the important things of the Spirit. It reduces man to a higher form of ape. Why not believe that we are created in God's very own image with the ability to be drawn (or not) to the Father?It is what I mean when I say that we are not simply divine pets with no choice at all in the matter - we are more than pets ... we are gloriously made by an awesome God. I think that when we exclude man from any part in salvation we call man to a dark place where it is normal to liveout his depravity.Then again who knows?
Missy said...
Ahhh... the chicken or the egg thing, again.depravity: the quality of state of being depraveddepraved: to make morally bad or evil, or to be morally bad or evilSo was man made bad or does man make bad?
**And then:
chris said...
I don't really want to get involved in this discussion, but it's cool that it is being discussed with kindness and dignity.
And THAT'S what I was searching for!!! :-D ><>
Kansas Bob said...
Referring to CP's comment on my comment in Karen's earlier post:I thought it was interesting that CP pointed out that Calvinism is in some respects really Universalism on a much smaller scale because people are seen as powerless ones having no choice in this most important matter.My point in bringing in the timeless perspective is to say that God predestines people based on His foreknowledge (as He is outside of time) of their choices. That said I have to say that my theology is not so narrow that I think that God has a litany of choices that people make but I do think that we are not simply Divine Calvinistic/Universalist Pets ... but I could be wrong ... been wrong before :)
codepoke said...
It's a really slow night in codepokeville, so I hope you'll forgive me if I continue. You know it's a favorite subject of mine, anyway. > My point in bringing in the timeless perspective is to say that God predestines people based on His foreknowledge (as He is outside of time) of their choices.I don't know whether it was clear in my reply to you that I heard and understood your point. Yes, seeing the end from the beginning, God would know at the beginning whom to "choose" to get His eternal will to align with what our human will eventually determined. This just doesn't make enough sense to me, though. And it leaves out God's part in the drama of conversion. God plays an active role in the whole show. The question is, "What role?"> I do think that we are not simply Divine Calvinistic/Universalist Pets You surely remember just how very, very much I loved that post of yours, right? You hit on real gold when you put it out there. You wrote as a purely anti-predestinational post, but it's 100% true. God is looking for lovers, friends, and confidants, not pets. Needless to say, I don't believe being predestined makes me a pet. It's being saved by my free will that could make me a pet! Predestination certainly makes me a child. Do you think I can back that preposterous statement up?Picture a young couple. They can't seem to have any children yet, and are pretty depressed, but one day a dog adopts them (of its own free will.) They keep the dog. The dog gets lonely, so they go out and buy a dog. Now they have two dogs, one of its own free will and one enslaved. One glorious day, though, they discover the young lady will soon be a young mother. Several months later, they have a child. One dog chose them and the other didn't, but neither of them is human. Only the child is human, but the child had no free will in the issue. The child cannot even choose to run away, though both of the pets is free to do so at any time. Just so, as a human, I can choose to "be christian" but what does it mean? It just means I'm hanging out in God's house of my own free will. That makes me one of God's pets. I'm not really a child of God yet, but I'm exercising my free will and calling myself a Christian. Only that which is born of Spirit that is spirit. It is the transformation from dead to alive that matters. It's the point at which we quit being human, and start being spiritual that life begins. We "believe" and are saved the same way a baby cries at birth and everyone rejoices - it's a reflex action to being alive and suddenly surrounded by pneuma. You could say the baby was alive because it breathed and not exactly be wrong, but the life had to come before the breathing. Look at John 3:18 this way. John 3:18He that breathes is alive: but he that breathes not is already dead, because he is not breathing. 3:18He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. It never says that the believing saves. It says the opposite. And yet, we are required to believe. The baby must breathe, and we must believe. If we did not believe, we would quit being alive, but that will never happen. This perspective is the only thing that makes John 1:12,13 make sense:But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. Somehow we all believed without our will being involved. But that's not hard to imagine if we find it was the will of God that gave birth to us so that we could believe. And if that means that we have no more choice in our salvation than a baby has in being born, is that so hard to believe? > but I could be wrong ... been wrong before :) Yeah. Me too. Praise the Lord He accepted us, by whatever means - even if it's yours. :-)
codepoke said...
Karen,> My thoughts are that perhaps those who do not believe, or do the most wicked of things are punished for what may seem like an eternity, but may only be for a time.Have you looked at those 62 uses of the word, eon, Karen? If so, do you not see the same problem I do? The authors use the exact same word to describe how long the dead will be dead as they use to describe how long the living will be alive. For example:Joh 10:28 And I give unto them eternal (eon) life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. The people who want to limit "eon" limit it only in select places that suit a preconceived argument.So, when Matthew says:Mt 13:40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world (eon). He seems to me to say that this age, this eon, will end with the destruction of the tares. In the next eon, there will be only the saved. Or what does this verse mean?Mr 10:30 But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world (eon) to come eternal (eon) life. If eon means a limited time, then the verse is really saying, "... in the age to come you will have life that ends with that age."The Greeks well understood the concept of eternity. And this is the word they used to describe that concept. There is no other word that means "even longer, ageless age." You have "eon" and that's it. The 62 verses make it clear that there are ages that end and ages that do not, and there's no reason within the texts in question to assume that the age of hell in particular is limited. Of course, as I've said before, I believe this age ends, and it ends with the destruction of the unbelievers.
Karen said...
wow...this is all good stuff, I love it.I'm going through your comments. Hmmm. I feel stupid.... :-)CP...what's the point of evangelism if only some are saved? What's the point of spreading the good news if it doesn't apply to some? And, seriously, for me...if we don't have a choice in our salvation, what's the point? I could be talking to God every night, thinking I have a relationship with Him, and BOOM...off to Hades I go after falling into a hole. Frankly, with a God like that...I don't know if I'd want to be with him. I don't think He's like that. What's the point of Jesus sending his disciples out to the Gentiles if salvation is already decided beforehand? The "sent ones" or apostles weren't necessary, and Paul's journeys would be pointless. God would already have instilled the belief in His saved.The problem with free will to believe or not to be saved is that WE are the key to being saved. I agree that it isn't a free will thing, but for different reasons than you state. You say, if I'm understanding, that it's already in our spirit to believe...those of us that might be saved. I say, we do have free will...but we could ALL be saved...because:We aren't saved because we believe....we believe BECAUSE we are saved! Re:"He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."It does indeed sound to me like you have to believe to be saved which is contrary to what you said--you said it was the opposite? If God gave us our belief, or has withheld it in others (Romans 11:8 and Romans 11:32..and Romans 9:)that indeed seems pretty meddlesome--and a very sad set-up.
karen said...
I'm still studying eon. :-)
Kansas Bob said...
CP wrote:You wrote as a purely anti-predestinational post, but it's 100% true.I believe in predestination ... that He predestines us based on his foreknowledge of our choices and actions. Karen wrote:The problem with free will to believe or not to be saved is that WE are the key to being saved.Here in is the rub :) Calvinists(and others) believe so much in the depravity of man that they MUST exclude man when they think about the important things of the Spirit. It reduces man to a higher form of ape. Why not believe that we are created in God's very own image with the ability to be drawn (or not) to the Father?It is what I mean when I say that we are not simply divine pets with no choice at all in the matter - we are more than pets ... we are gloriously made by an awesome God. I think that when we exclude man from any part in salvation we call man to a dark place where it is normal to liveout his depravity.Then again who knows?
Missy said...
Ahhh... the chicken or the egg thing, again.depravity: the quality of state of being depraveddepraved: to make morally bad or evil, or to be morally bad or evilSo was man made bad or does man make bad?
**And then:
chris said...
I don't really want to get involved in this discussion, but it's cool that it is being discussed with kindness and dignity.
And THAT'S what I was searching for!!! :-D ><>
Monday, August 20, 2007
In God's time.....
KB: I have been wondering what salvation looks like when viewed from a timeless existence. Seems that all of life past, present and future would fold together. Viewing one's life from this timeless perspective would allow you to know how one's response today would affect them tomorrow because you would see them in whole rather than in part. It would also allow one to be chosen 'yesterday' based on one's actions 'tomorrow' because there is no difference between them. Not that I have anything but questions about this :(
KB has posed this before when he and I have discussed "eternity" or "eons" or time in general with God.
God is beyond space and time. He just IS.
There is also the question of the "second death."
My thoughts are that perhaps those who do not believe, or do the most wicked of things are punished for what may seem like an eternity, but may only be for a time. Perhaps they are given the chance to choose (because every knee will bow, every tongue will proclaim)until they may join Him in the timeless time. I can't assume from that verse that only the "saved" or predestined make up the "every." I'm taking it at its word. (After I look up the actual word!)
Thoughts?
KB has posed this before when he and I have discussed "eternity" or "eons" or time in general with God.
God is beyond space and time. He just IS.
There is also the question of the "second death."
My thoughts are that perhaps those who do not believe, or do the most wicked of things are punished for what may seem like an eternity, but may only be for a time. Perhaps they are given the chance to choose (because every knee will bow, every tongue will proclaim)until they may join Him in the timeless time. I can't assume from that verse that only the "saved" or predestined make up the "every." I'm taking it at its word. (After I look up the actual word!)
Thoughts?
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Today
I am 18,262 days old today. How old are you?
Go to the age in days calculator. You can also get an idea of your "real age"
Supposedly, I'm 14,610 days old in 'real age.'
I'll take that.
Spirit of Now
Go to the age in days calculator. You can also get an idea of your "real age"
Supposedly, I'm 14,610 days old in 'real age.'
I'll take that.
Spirit of Now
Saturday, August 18, 2007
KB says one of his fav sayings by Philipp Melanchthon is:
"In essentials, unity; in differences, liberty; in all things, charity."
Maybe our (my) problem is in defining those essentials a bit too narrow. Maybe we are all a bit too quick to say heresy when we really don't understand where someone is coming from. Maybe online dialogs like these are an opportunity to embrace each other in liberty and with charity.
That's awesome! You guys are taking the ball and running with this. Thanks!
CP: " a heretic causes division in a group, so that would make Jesus a heretic" Hehehe. I assume you read my careful wording that it is dividing from those alive in Christ that is the problem. There is a very real, and very practical difference. " No, sadly, CP.....the body of Christ will more likely amputate ME from them; not the other way around." Almost certainly not. Really. I attend a church right now that disagrees with me on equally significant doctrines as this. It is possible to find peace with brothers and sisters even in such disagreement. The exercise is really, really valuable and can bring real glory to the Lord. " Read and I'll be back!"I'll be here, sister. :-)
Missy:
Kevin, you know, I think you're right. I'm considering all the crazy ideas I've had both online and in my church - and although there has been definite opposition, I have not experienced rejection. I've heard a lot of stories of rejection, but never experienced it. Never realized that before. I've also never experienced the closeness to others that I've had in the past few years while I've allowed myself to be "out there."My idea of heresy meant "out of the norm" or against tradition, not divisive. I certainly do not want to wear divisive as a badge!
Thanks, all! I have to say, that I've seen more shunning of "different ideas" in churches than I guess you guys have. I wish I'd had your experience. I have a dear friend who gives all, ministers to people, helped me in youth groups, runs sound boards. He believes in God, but not the deity of Jesus. CP questioned this story: The whole story is that all of the congregation was asked to talk to one of the pastors if they felt led to be an elder in the church. My friend is already an ordained elder in the RCA, as am I. The RCA (Reformed Church of America...oldest denomination in America) considers "once an elder...always an elder." My friend stepped up, but was refused because of her husband. They want "elder couples" which is not scriptural, by the way. That's the story. His wife stepped forward to be an elder, she was refused because of her husband's stance. They have to be an "elder couple" and he disqualifies them. I have also been sneered at because of my stance on loving homosexuals--one woman in a church I attended (no more!) used the word "fag." I about dropped my teeth. This was a young woman. So, yes, I have had experiences in every church I've attended. They are very exclusive. I dropped the notion of a God that eventually redeems everyone at one church...you could have heard a pin drop.
Here are a couple of scripture verses on my heart--paraphrased...you know the rest.
1) 1 Tim 4:10 God is the Savior of ALL (my emphasis) humans; especially believers.
John 3:16 God loved the cosmos (actual translation) so He gave His only Son.......
2) Another question: If Jesus died on the cross for all of our sins, is the sin of unbelief the only unforgivable sin?
3) If Jesus died on the cross for us, was His work complete if we must be the cause of our own salvation...in that WE have to believe in order to be saved.
Don replied to CP about the Apostle's Creed....it reminded me that a group of Protestants were a tad bit "unorthodox" when they took off from England to get away from persecution. Christianity has a long and interesting history. I have to remind myself that Jesus wasn't a Christian!
DonR said: CP-I'm not that familar with the Apostle's Creed. I was raised in a Southern Baptist home. Spent 21+ years as a Baptist deacon, so I didn't hear a lot about it. It is only recently (last 3 years) that I have begun to explore Christianity in depth, all versions. The Apostle's Creed dates from the 3rd-5th century CE, dpending on who you take as accurate. To me that's a long time after Christ's death on the cross. As near as I can see, the AC was written as a general refutation of Gnosticism, answering the basic ideas of Gnosticism point for point. I have studied Gnosticism a bit and find many of their ideas quite interesting, but certainly can't buy most of their exclusivity. God is simply much bigger and more loving than they imagined. I wasn't implying that there were any contridictions within the creed that had become orthodox. Anyway, I really don't like the word "orthodox". To me, it puts God in an "orthodox" box, impying that we have all the answers we need, which I don't believe.
I'll be back....thanks for coming back! :-)
"In essentials, unity; in differences, liberty; in all things, charity."
Maybe our (my) problem is in defining those essentials a bit too narrow. Maybe we are all a bit too quick to say heresy when we really don't understand where someone is coming from. Maybe online dialogs like these are an opportunity to embrace each other in liberty and with charity.
That's awesome! You guys are taking the ball and running with this. Thanks!
CP: " a heretic causes division in a group, so that would make Jesus a heretic" Hehehe. I assume you read my careful wording that it is dividing from those alive in Christ that is the problem. There is a very real, and very practical difference. " No, sadly, CP.....the body of Christ will more likely amputate ME from them; not the other way around." Almost certainly not. Really. I attend a church right now that disagrees with me on equally significant doctrines as this. It is possible to find peace with brothers and sisters even in such disagreement. The exercise is really, really valuable and can bring real glory to the Lord. " Read and I'll be back!"I'll be here, sister. :-)
Missy:
Kevin, you know, I think you're right. I'm considering all the crazy ideas I've had both online and in my church - and although there has been definite opposition, I have not experienced rejection. I've heard a lot of stories of rejection, but never experienced it. Never realized that before. I've also never experienced the closeness to others that I've had in the past few years while I've allowed myself to be "out there."My idea of heresy meant "out of the norm" or against tradition, not divisive. I certainly do not want to wear divisive as a badge!
Thanks, all! I have to say, that I've seen more shunning of "different ideas" in churches than I guess you guys have. I wish I'd had your experience. I have a dear friend who gives all, ministers to people, helped me in youth groups, runs sound boards. He believes in God, but not the deity of Jesus. CP questioned this story: The whole story is that all of the congregation was asked to talk to one of the pastors if they felt led to be an elder in the church. My friend is already an ordained elder in the RCA, as am I. The RCA (Reformed Church of America...oldest denomination in America) considers "once an elder...always an elder." My friend stepped up, but was refused because of her husband. They want "elder couples" which is not scriptural, by the way. That's the story. His wife stepped forward to be an elder, she was refused because of her husband's stance. They have to be an "elder couple" and he disqualifies them. I have also been sneered at because of my stance on loving homosexuals--one woman in a church I attended (no more!) used the word "fag." I about dropped my teeth. This was a young woman. So, yes, I have had experiences in every church I've attended. They are very exclusive. I dropped the notion of a God that eventually redeems everyone at one church...you could have heard a pin drop.
Here are a couple of scripture verses on my heart--paraphrased...you know the rest.
1) 1 Tim 4:10 God is the Savior of ALL (my emphasis) humans; especially believers.
John 3:16 God loved the cosmos (actual translation) so He gave His only Son.......
2) Another question: If Jesus died on the cross for all of our sins, is the sin of unbelief the only unforgivable sin?
3) If Jesus died on the cross for us, was His work complete if we must be the cause of our own salvation...in that WE have to believe in order to be saved.
Don replied to CP about the Apostle's Creed....it reminded me that a group of Protestants were a tad bit "unorthodox" when they took off from England to get away from persecution. Christianity has a long and interesting history. I have to remind myself that Jesus wasn't a Christian!
DonR said: CP-I'm not that familar with the Apostle's Creed. I was raised in a Southern Baptist home. Spent 21+ years as a Baptist deacon, so I didn't hear a lot about it. It is only recently (last 3 years) that I have begun to explore Christianity in depth, all versions. The Apostle's Creed dates from the 3rd-5th century CE, dpending on who you take as accurate. To me that's a long time after Christ's death on the cross. As near as I can see, the AC was written as a general refutation of Gnosticism, answering the basic ideas of Gnosticism point for point. I have studied Gnosticism a bit and find many of their ideas quite interesting, but certainly can't buy most of their exclusivity. God is simply much bigger and more loving than they imagined. I wasn't implying that there were any contridictions within the creed that had become orthodox. Anyway, I really don't like the word "orthodox". To me, it puts God in an "orthodox" box, impying that we have all the answers we need, which I don't believe.
I'll be back....thanks for coming back! :-)
Friday, August 17, 2007
Good stuff....
Well, I guess I asked for it! :-)
(Smiling nervously, flipping hair back, looking furtively around for an exit route) ;-}
It's all good stuff!! Some of the consensus is that a heretic causes division in a group, so that would make Jesus a heretic because He caused a major division. Now, that is not news to anyone, of course, but it personally takes the sting of the name "heretic" out of it for me....although I'm not trying to cause a division, but that may be the result--but I won't be the one moving out of love with anyone who disagrees with me. SO...sounds like we're all okay!
Anyway...CP poses this:
Do you take this shining truth, this possibly true truth, and amputate yourself from the body of Christ with it? Can you, do you, fellowship in love and harmony with those who lack this truth? Do you extend God's grace to those in the church to which you are called?
No, sadly, CP.....the body of Christ will more likely amputate ME from them; not the other way around.
I haven't decided if this is the Truth or not. I'm searching, as we are to search, for God conceals things from us and it's a glory for us to seek out His Truth. And, interestingly enough, I've been amputated by a few Universalists who found my suggestion for open minds on all sides to be annoying, thereby making me worthy of being shunned. Can't win! :-)
So, Karen, if you embrace the idea that all souls will be saved, I say you're embracing an error - and I pull just that little bit closer to you for it. If it bothers you that I reject that doctrine, I won't back away from either my conclusions or from you. If, at the end of the day, we can both build each other up and reach Christ together, then there's error on my side or yours, but no heresy.
Thank you, CP, that you'll pull closer to me even when we might disagree! That's awesome and it means the world!...and the way it's supposed to work. It doesn't bother me that you reject that doctrine. I'm looking at words, the (closest to) originals and trying to figure out what it all means. I know you are, too!
Read and I'll be back!
Missy said...
K - I guess I got prideful and acted like I am more enlightened. I am sorry for the childish response.
I watch so many people change and evolve over their lives growing in faith, waning in faith, changing perspective, understanding more clearly or being set in tradition that I guess it just doesn't seem right to label and reject people that are simply learning, just as I am, when they get stuck on a crazy idea - and especially when that crazy idea has merit or even better, love, at the heart of it.
We really hold each other to a higher standard than ourselves sometimes. That really seems about as far away from Jesus as I can be.
(BTW, my comments were not directed to anyone and I find myself in agreement with most of those made, I just had a gut reaction as a rebellious child of God!)
I am thinking about your ideas on forgiveness. I'll get back to you.
Kansas Bob said...
Hi Karen,
You and I have batted this idea around a few times. I have noticed in the UR community that some wear 'heretic' and 'heresy' as some kind of badge of honor ... I really don't find that to be helpful because it is labelling and sort-of name calling.
I would rather just discuss the idea of eternal judgment that you have surfaced. To frame the discussion maybe it would be good to ask questions like:
Does the bible speak of eternal judgment? If so, what are the scriptures that support it and which ones do not support it.
Not sure if this helps or not - feel free to deep six. I just don't want to get into a name calling exercise.
Blessings,
Sanctimonious Bob
:)
Kansas Bob said...
About this:
Anyway, so, when Jesus talks about fire and damnation for an eternity, it's stated an "eon" or set period of time.
I think that God ("I AM") exists outside of time and that time is only relevant in our fleshly earthly experience. So I think that words like eternity could represent such a timeless existence after after death.
This is problematic for a temporary (non-eternal) judgment.
Sanctimoniously speaking of course :)
Missy said...
KB, I am proud to call you friend! What a mature response. Now I am envious. :)
Karen, your response did not provoke my apology - a little time to think did. I think this is a great discussion to have. But, I'm still thinkin'...
Don R said...
Excellent reply, Karen. It shows you are using your brain and spirit. You're not just accepting a doctrine because it's always been that way. Maybe it's always been wrong! I have read enough to know that Christianity in the first century was very different from what we see today in most mainline Christian churches. Quite a few doctrines were introduced into the church in the 2nd and 3rd century by the Church/state (Rome) to insure adherence to the govt/Church's line; I believe so that the Church/state could maintain control of the masses of ignorant people. The practice of not letting the people read the NT in Greek (the lingua franca of the day), then Jerome's very poor transcription of the Greek (a language he hated)NT into Latin (the Vulgate)insured that the NT said exactly what the Church/state wanted. How much of it was significantly changed. It's hard to pin down. But, thanks to Augustine, the doctrine of ECT or ET became firmly rooted in the Latin version of the NT. The threat of eternal conscious torment (ECT), being separated from God forever, is a pretty good way to insure that the people will "toe the line". The firming up of the doctrine of the Trinity also came about after the Latin edition was created. I have a lot of unanswered questions about the differences between the writings of the early followers of Jesus and the Latin Vulgate. When it comes right down to it, everything we "believe" as result of faith. Proof, scientific or otherwise will not and cannot enter the picture. Whoa, didn't mean to go on so long. All this is just my own musings. No one has to accept a single word of it. However, I would encourage you to check it out for yourself.
Don R said...
CP- Almost forgot to answer your question. I believe many of Paul"s ideas were called heresy by the church in Jerusalem, when Paul said that Gentiles didn't have to follow Jewish Law. Check out Galatians, I believe.
Don R said...
Karen- I agree with your point on mistranslation. Does it really matter that much?? You bet it does! I can think of two words that have been mistranslated in the KJV NT and other similar NTs. Those words are HELL and ETERNAL. If you mistranlate what the Greek said in every place those words are used in context, you've changed the whole meaning of the authors words. You have created an idea, ECT or ET, which was never meant to be there.
Don R said...
I think we have to remember who Jesus was addressing in the Gospels. Jews. So when He taught about a judgement coming, it was not a distant future event. He even said it would happen within that generation. He was speaking of a national judgement of the Jews, because they would reject His mission. That judgement came in 70 CE at the hands of the Romans. The Jews have not worshipped in the temple since. Context is everything. Everything Jesus said has to be searched for its context in order to better understand His message. An example: the word Gehenna, usually translated Hell. Jesus used it numerous times when He was speaking to Jews about a future national judgement. He used the word because He knew Jews understood the connotation of it, knew its physical location (the valley of Hinnom)and its purpose in the history of the Jews. It was not a place of eternal torment, but a reference to the coming national judgement. I apologize for such a long comment. Again, just my musings. No one has to believe a thing I write. I love you all as brothers and sisters in God's great plan!!
Don R said...
KB- I guess the only exception to any of the creed would be the word (you already know the one) HELL. I believe it would be better translated sheol or the grave. He went there and released the captives He found there. How many do you suppose He spoke to and released. Hmm.. I think it was probably all of them.
codepoke said...
> So, I'm looking at this Creed from a whole 'nother angle. I believe in His forgiveness of sins. Period.
Ah. I see. I missed the point the first time around.
> does that make me a heretic?
Sigh.
The question is backwards.
You may be right or wrong. I suspect wrong, but Don R would say something highly informed and pointed about that. There's always someone to agree with you, and no matter what you believe, there'll always be more people to disagree. That's alright.
The question is whether you are joined to the body of Christ? Are you joined to the Head? Do saints who touch you with the Lord's love and wisdom appreciate that you are their friend? Do you destroy the body of Christ, or build it up?
Assume you are right. Assume every living soul will one day taste the forgiving power of Christ's love. Do you take this shining truth, this possibly true truth, and amputate yourself from the body of Christ with it? Can you, do you, fellowship in love and harmony with those who lack this truth? Do you extend God's grace to those in the church to which you are called?
If not, then - THEN - you are a heretic. You are a heretic with the truth, which is a little odd, but a heretic nonetheless. I said Paul's definition of a heretic had been forgotten. Here it is:
I Cor 11:17 Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. 18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. 19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
Divisions are the mark of heresy. We've made error the mark of heresy, but it's really division. Any teaching that pulls people together and pulls them closer to the Lord does not qualify as heresy. Peter refers to damnable heresies, and there are definitely damnable errors, but those always lead to division. When people are drawn to Christ, it's always good.
Please forgive me, Karen, if I put a question in your mouth that is not really there. I suspect it is not, but I have to argue against it.
FAQ: So, what can you do when people reject you, because you have the truth? They rejected Jesus, so why should I be surprised when they reject me over the truth?
Answer: That is a "guy's" question. It deals in weighty matters and the red badge of courage. And it's completely wrong-headed.
Us dudes need to scale back the thinking that asks that question. Instead of thinking about "The Cause of God and Truth," let's think about sisters and brothers whom we love and who love us, people whom we know adore the Lord and are rich in His life. When those people reject our little truth and we allow that fact to separate us from them, we have become heretics. I've been there and done that, and it is sin - plain and simple.
So, Karen, if you embrace the idea that all souls will be saved, I say you're embracing an error - and I pull just that little bit closer to you for it. If it bothers you that I reject that doctrine, I won't back away from either my conclusions or from you. If, at the end of the day, we can both build each other up and reach Christ together, then there's error on my side or yours, but no heresy.
codepoke said...
Also, Karen, you more or less ask how to study the word, "Aionios."
Far and away the easiest and best way to do so is to look at every instance of the word in Greek. That's simple to do using crosswalk.com or several other tools. Crosswalk shows 69 instances of aionios in the new testament. Take a look at all of them, and see whether they tend to mean something with or without a beginning, end, or whatever.
If possible, look at the way John uses the word in his gospel and his epistles. Then look at Peter's gospel (Mark) and epistles. Then look at all Paul's letters. By breaking the study up into a single-person's meaning, you are more likely to be comparing apples to apples. If no pattern emerges, then you dig into lexicons and the like, but where scripture can interpret scripture you know you're on solid ground.
Here's the link to crosswalk on aionios:
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=166&version=kjv
Kansas Bob said...
Thanks CP for defining a heretic as one who causes divisions - very insightful. These questions that you pose are very insightful:
Do you take this shining truth, this possibly true truth, and amputate yourself from the body of Christ with it? Can you, do you, fellowship in love and harmony with those who lack this truth? Do you extend God's grace to those in the church to which you are called?
My blogging exerience tells me that some folks can but some can't. Some have withdrawn from what they call "the institutional church" because they exalt their pet doctrine and can't deal with people who don't agree with that doctrine. Their fellowship seems to be based on an assent to their "doctrine" and not on Jesus. What they charge "the institutional church" with they do themselves ... but I could just talking sanctimoniously :)
Don R said...
KB- Don't you just "hate" "pet" doctrines and those who can't deal with others who can't agree with that doctrine. Ouch!! You, sanctimonious! I don't view it that way. Go easy on yourself...
(Smiling nervously, flipping hair back, looking furtively around for an exit route) ;-}
It's all good stuff!! Some of the consensus is that a heretic causes division in a group, so that would make Jesus a heretic because He caused a major division. Now, that is not news to anyone, of course, but it personally takes the sting of the name "heretic" out of it for me....although I'm not trying to cause a division, but that may be the result--but I won't be the one moving out of love with anyone who disagrees with me. SO...sounds like we're all okay!
Anyway...CP poses this:
Do you take this shining truth, this possibly true truth, and amputate yourself from the body of Christ with it? Can you, do you, fellowship in love and harmony with those who lack this truth? Do you extend God's grace to those in the church to which you are called?
No, sadly, CP.....the body of Christ will more likely amputate ME from them; not the other way around.
I haven't decided if this is the Truth or not. I'm searching, as we are to search, for God conceals things from us and it's a glory for us to seek out His Truth. And, interestingly enough, I've been amputated by a few Universalists who found my suggestion for open minds on all sides to be annoying, thereby making me worthy of being shunned. Can't win! :-)
So, Karen, if you embrace the idea that all souls will be saved, I say you're embracing an error - and I pull just that little bit closer to you for it. If it bothers you that I reject that doctrine, I won't back away from either my conclusions or from you. If, at the end of the day, we can both build each other up and reach Christ together, then there's error on my side or yours, but no heresy.
Thank you, CP, that you'll pull closer to me even when we might disagree! That's awesome and it means the world!...and the way it's supposed to work. It doesn't bother me that you reject that doctrine. I'm looking at words, the (closest to) originals and trying to figure out what it all means. I know you are, too!
Read and I'll be back!
Missy said...
K - I guess I got prideful and acted like I am more enlightened. I am sorry for the childish response.
I watch so many people change and evolve over their lives growing in faith, waning in faith, changing perspective, understanding more clearly or being set in tradition that I guess it just doesn't seem right to label and reject people that are simply learning, just as I am, when they get stuck on a crazy idea - and especially when that crazy idea has merit or even better, love, at the heart of it.
We really hold each other to a higher standard than ourselves sometimes. That really seems about as far away from Jesus as I can be.
(BTW, my comments were not directed to anyone and I find myself in agreement with most of those made, I just had a gut reaction as a rebellious child of God!)
I am thinking about your ideas on forgiveness. I'll get back to you.
Kansas Bob said...
Hi Karen,
You and I have batted this idea around a few times. I have noticed in the UR community that some wear 'heretic' and 'heresy' as some kind of badge of honor ... I really don't find that to be helpful because it is labelling and sort-of name calling.
I would rather just discuss the idea of eternal judgment that you have surfaced. To frame the discussion maybe it would be good to ask questions like:
Does the bible speak of eternal judgment? If so, what are the scriptures that support it and which ones do not support it.
Not sure if this helps or not - feel free to deep six. I just don't want to get into a name calling exercise.
Blessings,
Sanctimonious Bob
:)
Kansas Bob said...
About this:
Anyway, so, when Jesus talks about fire and damnation for an eternity, it's stated an "eon" or set period of time.
I think that God ("I AM") exists outside of time and that time is only relevant in our fleshly earthly experience. So I think that words like eternity could represent such a timeless existence after after death.
This is problematic for a temporary (non-eternal) judgment.
Sanctimoniously speaking of course :)
Missy said...
KB, I am proud to call you friend! What a mature response. Now I am envious. :)
Karen, your response did not provoke my apology - a little time to think did. I think this is a great discussion to have. But, I'm still thinkin'...
Don R said...
Excellent reply, Karen. It shows you are using your brain and spirit. You're not just accepting a doctrine because it's always been that way. Maybe it's always been wrong! I have read enough to know that Christianity in the first century was very different from what we see today in most mainline Christian churches. Quite a few doctrines were introduced into the church in the 2nd and 3rd century by the Church/state (Rome) to insure adherence to the govt/Church's line; I believe so that the Church/state could maintain control of the masses of ignorant people. The practice of not letting the people read the NT in Greek (the lingua franca of the day), then Jerome's very poor transcription of the Greek (a language he hated)NT into Latin (the Vulgate)insured that the NT said exactly what the Church/state wanted. How much of it was significantly changed. It's hard to pin down. But, thanks to Augustine, the doctrine of ECT or ET became firmly rooted in the Latin version of the NT. The threat of eternal conscious torment (ECT), being separated from God forever, is a pretty good way to insure that the people will "toe the line". The firming up of the doctrine of the Trinity also came about after the Latin edition was created. I have a lot of unanswered questions about the differences between the writings of the early followers of Jesus and the Latin Vulgate. When it comes right down to it, everything we "believe" as result of faith. Proof, scientific or otherwise will not and cannot enter the picture. Whoa, didn't mean to go on so long. All this is just my own musings. No one has to accept a single word of it. However, I would encourage you to check it out for yourself.
Don R said...
CP- Almost forgot to answer your question. I believe many of Paul"s ideas were called heresy by the church in Jerusalem, when Paul said that Gentiles didn't have to follow Jewish Law. Check out Galatians, I believe.
Don R said...
Karen- I agree with your point on mistranslation. Does it really matter that much?? You bet it does! I can think of two words that have been mistranslated in the KJV NT and other similar NTs. Those words are HELL and ETERNAL. If you mistranlate what the Greek said in every place those words are used in context, you've changed the whole meaning of the authors words. You have created an idea, ECT or ET, which was never meant to be there.
Don R said...
I think we have to remember who Jesus was addressing in the Gospels. Jews. So when He taught about a judgement coming, it was not a distant future event. He even said it would happen within that generation. He was speaking of a national judgement of the Jews, because they would reject His mission. That judgement came in 70 CE at the hands of the Romans. The Jews have not worshipped in the temple since. Context is everything. Everything Jesus said has to be searched for its context in order to better understand His message. An example: the word Gehenna, usually translated Hell. Jesus used it numerous times when He was speaking to Jews about a future national judgement. He used the word because He knew Jews understood the connotation of it, knew its physical location (the valley of Hinnom)and its purpose in the history of the Jews. It was not a place of eternal torment, but a reference to the coming national judgement. I apologize for such a long comment. Again, just my musings. No one has to believe a thing I write. I love you all as brothers and sisters in God's great plan!!
Don R said...
KB- I guess the only exception to any of the creed would be the word (you already know the one) HELL. I believe it would be better translated sheol or the grave. He went there and released the captives He found there. How many do you suppose He spoke to and released. Hmm.. I think it was probably all of them.
codepoke said...
> So, I'm looking at this Creed from a whole 'nother angle. I believe in His forgiveness of sins. Period.
Ah. I see. I missed the point the first time around.
> does that make me a heretic?
Sigh.
The question is backwards.
You may be right or wrong. I suspect wrong, but Don R would say something highly informed and pointed about that. There's always someone to agree with you, and no matter what you believe, there'll always be more people to disagree. That's alright.
The question is whether you are joined to the body of Christ? Are you joined to the Head? Do saints who touch you with the Lord's love and wisdom appreciate that you are their friend? Do you destroy the body of Christ, or build it up?
Assume you are right. Assume every living soul will one day taste the forgiving power of Christ's love. Do you take this shining truth, this possibly true truth, and amputate yourself from the body of Christ with it? Can you, do you, fellowship in love and harmony with those who lack this truth? Do you extend God's grace to those in the church to which you are called?
If not, then - THEN - you are a heretic. You are a heretic with the truth, which is a little odd, but a heretic nonetheless. I said Paul's definition of a heretic had been forgotten. Here it is:
I Cor 11:17 Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. 18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. 19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
Divisions are the mark of heresy. We've made error the mark of heresy, but it's really division. Any teaching that pulls people together and pulls them closer to the Lord does not qualify as heresy. Peter refers to damnable heresies, and there are definitely damnable errors, but those always lead to division. When people are drawn to Christ, it's always good.
Please forgive me, Karen, if I put a question in your mouth that is not really there. I suspect it is not, but I have to argue against it.
FAQ: So, what can you do when people reject you, because you have the truth? They rejected Jesus, so why should I be surprised when they reject me over the truth?
Answer: That is a "guy's" question. It deals in weighty matters and the red badge of courage. And it's completely wrong-headed.
Us dudes need to scale back the thinking that asks that question. Instead of thinking about "The Cause of God and Truth," let's think about sisters and brothers whom we love and who love us, people whom we know adore the Lord and are rich in His life. When those people reject our little truth and we allow that fact to separate us from them, we have become heretics. I've been there and done that, and it is sin - plain and simple.
So, Karen, if you embrace the idea that all souls will be saved, I say you're embracing an error - and I pull just that little bit closer to you for it. If it bothers you that I reject that doctrine, I won't back away from either my conclusions or from you. If, at the end of the day, we can both build each other up and reach Christ together, then there's error on my side or yours, but no heresy.
codepoke said...
Also, Karen, you more or less ask how to study the word, "Aionios."
Far and away the easiest and best way to do so is to look at every instance of the word in Greek. That's simple to do using crosswalk.com or several other tools. Crosswalk shows 69 instances of aionios in the new testament. Take a look at all of them, and see whether they tend to mean something with or without a beginning, end, or whatever.
If possible, look at the way John uses the word in his gospel and his epistles. Then look at Peter's gospel (Mark) and epistles. Then look at all Paul's letters. By breaking the study up into a single-person's meaning, you are more likely to be comparing apples to apples. If no pattern emerges, then you dig into lexicons and the like, but where scripture can interpret scripture you know you're on solid ground.
Here's the link to crosswalk on aionios:
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=166&version=kjv
Kansas Bob said...
Thanks CP for defining a heretic as one who causes divisions - very insightful. These questions that you pose are very insightful:
Do you take this shining truth, this possibly true truth, and amputate yourself from the body of Christ with it? Can you, do you, fellowship in love and harmony with those who lack this truth? Do you extend God's grace to those in the church to which you are called?
My blogging exerience tells me that some folks can but some can't. Some have withdrawn from what they call "the institutional church" because they exalt their pet doctrine and can't deal with people who don't agree with that doctrine. Their fellowship seems to be based on an assent to their "doctrine" and not on Jesus. What they charge "the institutional church" with they do themselves ... but I could just talking sanctimoniously :)
Don R said...
KB- Don't you just "hate" "pet" doctrines and those who can't deal with others who can't agree with that doctrine. Ouch!! You, sanctimonious! I don't view it that way. Go easy on yourself...
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
heresy...continued....
UPDATE: Missy! Don't apologize, please. I apologize that I made you feel like you had to apologize! I LOVED what you said! There is no condemnation here! It was not "childish" it was "childlike" and that's what we have to be in order to not let our "adult" (HA) selves get in the way of asking questions. KB...I'm not in the Universalist corner. I really don't want to be called any denomination or anything. I'm just asking. And, your statements and questions are good and wonderful, so no sanctimonious stuff here, okay? :-D It seems like I made you feel that way, and I apologize. I have a flippant way about me sometimes, especially when I'm treading on dangerous ground!
Being called a heretic scares me, actually.It hits me in the "you don't know anything about the Bible, Karen!"spot.
Your point is good...Let's discuss: Does the Bible teach the concept of eternal torment for non-believers?
If something else comes up in the interim, that's okay, too.
What I was going for was.....if we disagree on doctine, but agree that we are all in love with our Jesus, will we consider each other heretics? Frankly, the thought of losing any of you would be heartbreaking to me.
Here are some more "heresy" statements. Looks like Missy is itchin' for a fight! ;-) Or for some chocolate....me, too! CP....I think what Don is saying is that a lot of the stuff that is claimed as right and true today in general Christian circles may not have begun that way. What is orthodox and accepted now may have been "heretical" at the time. KB and CP both quote the Apostles' Creed. Now, I agree with everything in the Creed. The problem is, the Creed is not in the Bible.
....and now, note:
"I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting."
It doesn't say....I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins for myself and for those who believe, the resurrection of the body for myself and for those who believe, and the life everlasting for myself and for those who believe.
So, I'm looking at this Creed from a whole 'nother angle. I believe in His forgiveness of sins. Period.
Now, if I'm thinking that everyone will be forgiven because I love my Saviour and I believe that He will eventually bring all to Him, does that make me a heretic? If I'm not in line with the general population of Christians who feel that only a certain segment of society (believers) will be granted entrance into the Kingdom--will I be kicked out of Christendom?
Don also makes a point about the translations of the Bible. I believe the word of the Bible is, indeed, infallible. That's saying something, because I know a lot of the history of how the books of the Bible got there. I hope that you'll investigate this as well, if you haven't. I know that God certainly had His hand in this process because man certainly stuck his foot into it. After investigating the "women" stuff in the Book and seeing how the translations were mucked up, I can only assume that other aspects might have been messed with as well. It's very enlightening to see the words (as close as we have them, since we only have copies of copies of original manuscripts) as they are. Taking those words and finding the meaning of them through a Greek dictionary, or a Strong's or whatever....and letting the Holy Spirit lead you in the meaning. It's a feeling that wells up warm and loving in your gut, I promise you.....you're reading disjointed words...and in supernatural moment you know what the Holy Spirit is saying. Awesome.
Anyway, the word "eternity" is the simplest example. It is aion or aionios in the Greek, but it really translates to "eon." I don't have the little doo-dads that accent the words...sorry. Anyway, I looked it up, and it's true. No, I'm not a Greek scholar, but there are bunches out there with brains to pick. And, I have. Anyway, so, when Jesus talks about fire and damnation for an eternity, it's stated an "eon" or set period of time. I emailed the author of a new NT translation and asked her why she has it translated as eternity in the body of a scripture verse, but footnoted that it can mean "for a set period of time." There's kinda a difference in a set period of time and eternity. Either it's forever or it's not. Weeeelllll.....I didn't really get an answer on that. I got an interesting discussion about how one word can mean many things. Well, of course they can, but I want to know what the GREEK means in that precise spot! not what some translator made it say in our English. What I get from her response (in my humble opinion only) is that we are so entrenched in the hellfire mindset that we dare not stick our toes in any possible pool of all-encompassing forgiveness...even though we claim Jesus as the lover of us all.
More later. Remember....I'm just talking out loud here. Go ahead...throw something at me. Be nice. Let's see where it goes.
codepoke said...
Don R,> many times the heresies became the orthodox in timeIt's hard to know what you mean by this. Almost everything that's ever been believed is currently believed by some denomination somewhere, so yes, this is true after a fashion, but only at the periphery of the faith. I can't think of any contradiction of the Apostles' Creed that's ever been accepted as orthodoxy anywhere, any time.
3:47 PM
Missy said...
I think heresy and Hershey are synonymous - mmm mmm, good!If someone tells me someone else is a heretic, I immediately want to hear what they are teaching. Is that wrong?I just think its rather silly to put a label on someone that basically says, "I'm right and you're wrong" - especially on things that are really just our best guesses.In my experience, it's not usually the heretic who splits the church, he/she is the one who wants to talk about something no one in leadership does. It's the leadership who label him/her and those who agree as heretics and kick them out.Maybe there are some situations this is a required action for, but not any I have witnessed.Does any of this make me a heretic? That would be cool...
4:38 PM
Kansas Bob said...
I like what CP said about the Apostle's Creed. Here it is:I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth. I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended into hell. On the third day he rose again. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen. I accept it. Anyone take exception to it?
3:02 PM
Being called a heretic scares me, actually.It hits me in the "you don't know anything about the Bible, Karen!"spot.
Your point is good...Let's discuss: Does the Bible teach the concept of eternal torment for non-believers?
If something else comes up in the interim, that's okay, too.
What I was going for was.....if we disagree on doctine, but agree that we are all in love with our Jesus, will we consider each other heretics? Frankly, the thought of losing any of you would be heartbreaking to me.
Here are some more "heresy" statements. Looks like Missy is itchin' for a fight! ;-) Or for some chocolate....me, too! CP....I think what Don is saying is that a lot of the stuff that is claimed as right and true today in general Christian circles may not have begun that way. What is orthodox and accepted now may have been "heretical" at the time. KB and CP both quote the Apostles' Creed. Now, I agree with everything in the Creed. The problem is, the Creed is not in the Bible.
....and now, note:
"I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting."
It doesn't say....I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins for myself and for those who believe, the resurrection of the body for myself and for those who believe, and the life everlasting for myself and for those who believe.
So, I'm looking at this Creed from a whole 'nother angle. I believe in His forgiveness of sins. Period.
Now, if I'm thinking that everyone will be forgiven because I love my Saviour and I believe that He will eventually bring all to Him, does that make me a heretic? If I'm not in line with the general population of Christians who feel that only a certain segment of society (believers) will be granted entrance into the Kingdom--will I be kicked out of Christendom?
Don also makes a point about the translations of the Bible. I believe the word of the Bible is, indeed, infallible. That's saying something, because I know a lot of the history of how the books of the Bible got there. I hope that you'll investigate this as well, if you haven't. I know that God certainly had His hand in this process because man certainly stuck his foot into it. After investigating the "women" stuff in the Book and seeing how the translations were mucked up, I can only assume that other aspects might have been messed with as well. It's very enlightening to see the words (as close as we have them, since we only have copies of copies of original manuscripts) as they are. Taking those words and finding the meaning of them through a Greek dictionary, or a Strong's or whatever....and letting the Holy Spirit lead you in the meaning. It's a feeling that wells up warm and loving in your gut, I promise you.....you're reading disjointed words...and in supernatural moment you know what the Holy Spirit is saying. Awesome.
Anyway, the word "eternity" is the simplest example. It is aion or aionios in the Greek, but it really translates to "eon." I don't have the little doo-dads that accent the words...sorry. Anyway, I looked it up, and it's true. No, I'm not a Greek scholar, but there are bunches out there with brains to pick. And, I have. Anyway, so, when Jesus talks about fire and damnation for an eternity, it's stated an "eon" or set period of time. I emailed the author of a new NT translation and asked her why she has it translated as eternity in the body of a scripture verse, but footnoted that it can mean "for a set period of time." There's kinda a difference in a set period of time and eternity. Either it's forever or it's not. Weeeelllll.....I didn't really get an answer on that. I got an interesting discussion about how one word can mean many things. Well, of course they can, but I want to know what the GREEK means in that precise spot! not what some translator made it say in our English. What I get from her response (in my humble opinion only) is that we are so entrenched in the hellfire mindset that we dare not stick our toes in any possible pool of all-encompassing forgiveness...even though we claim Jesus as the lover of us all.
More later. Remember....I'm just talking out loud here. Go ahead...throw something at me. Be nice. Let's see where it goes.
codepoke said...
Don R,> many times the heresies became the orthodox in timeIt's hard to know what you mean by this. Almost everything that's ever been believed is currently believed by some denomination somewhere, so yes, this is true after a fashion, but only at the periphery of the faith. I can't think of any contradiction of the Apostles' Creed that's ever been accepted as orthodoxy anywhere, any time.
3:47 PM
Missy said...
I think heresy and Hershey are synonymous - mmm mmm, good!If someone tells me someone else is a heretic, I immediately want to hear what they are teaching. Is that wrong?I just think its rather silly to put a label on someone that basically says, "I'm right and you're wrong" - especially on things that are really just our best guesses.In my experience, it's not usually the heretic who splits the church, he/she is the one who wants to talk about something no one in leadership does. It's the leadership who label him/her and those who agree as heretics and kick them out.Maybe there are some situations this is a required action for, but not any I have witnessed.Does any of this make me a heretic? That would be cool...
4:38 PM
Kansas Bob said...
I like what CP said about the Apostle's Creed. Here it is:I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth. I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended into hell. On the third day he rose again. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen. I accept it. Anyone take exception to it?
3:02 PM
Monday, August 13, 2007
Heresy
Got back from Vail/Beaver Creek. Had a great time, but lost a couple days not feeling too great when we got back. I had an altitude headache for 2 days there, got used to it, then bounced back to flat ol' Texas! Feeling a bit better now, but would someone please turn down the heat? More on the trip later.
Got a little tag thing in the works, too, from Pearlie....I'm working on it! It's fun!
Here are a couple of heresy responses from youse guys....I'm working on this, too! And, Milly, I would be happy to talk Hershey with you anytime!! :-)
Don R said...
1. a professed believer who maintains religious opinions contrary to those accepted by his or her church or rejects doctrines prescribed by that church. 2. Roman Catholic Church. a baptized Roman Catholic who willfully and persistently rejects any article of faith. 3. anyone who does not conform to an established attitude, doctrine, or principle. I think it probably fits #3 the closest,if you add "that I believe", to the end of the definition. Chappy and I definitely fit #1, #2, #3. If you look at heresies down through the ages (eons=aion):), many times the heresies became the orthodox in time. Jesus was certainly considered a heretic to the temple leaders of his day. Heresy is a very fluid term.... One man's heretic is another man's brother in the faith...Blessings!
11:10 AM
codepoke said...
So many things going on, but I really wanted to comment on this. I'm sorry, I'll probably have to be brief. A heretic is something Paul defined, and we lost the definition for. We've been trying to figure it out ever since. There are two types of heretics.1) Not saved:This person believes lots of facts about God, and since he doesn't know God, he gets a bunch of them wrong. That does not stop him from becoming a religious leader, and confusing many of the true children of God, though. 2) Saved: It's exactly like the first one, but this guy knows God and puts his head or feelings or will in front of the Spirit within him, makes mistakes, and confuses many of the other children of God. The difference between the two is that when rebuked, one eventually is convicted and repents. The other splits the church and breaks the hearts of many of the children he's been confusing. That's just my two cents. Mostly, this is one of the most important questions in practical Christianity, and when you asked it you just fired me up to think about it. So, those are my first thoughts. I look forward to your conclusions!
Got a little tag thing in the works, too, from Pearlie....I'm working on it! It's fun!
Here are a couple of heresy responses from youse guys....I'm working on this, too! And, Milly, I would be happy to talk Hershey with you anytime!! :-)
Don R said...
1. a professed believer who maintains religious opinions contrary to those accepted by his or her church or rejects doctrines prescribed by that church. 2. Roman Catholic Church. a baptized Roman Catholic who willfully and persistently rejects any article of faith. 3. anyone who does not conform to an established attitude, doctrine, or principle. I think it probably fits #3 the closest,if you add "that I believe", to the end of the definition. Chappy and I definitely fit #1, #2, #3. If you look at heresies down through the ages (eons=aion):), many times the heresies became the orthodox in time. Jesus was certainly considered a heretic to the temple leaders of his day. Heresy is a very fluid term.... One man's heretic is another man's brother in the faith...Blessings!
11:10 AM
codepoke said...
So many things going on, but I really wanted to comment on this. I'm sorry, I'll probably have to be brief. A heretic is something Paul defined, and we lost the definition for. We've been trying to figure it out ever since. There are two types of heretics.1) Not saved:This person believes lots of facts about God, and since he doesn't know God, he gets a bunch of them wrong. That does not stop him from becoming a religious leader, and confusing many of the true children of God, though. 2) Saved: It's exactly like the first one, but this guy knows God and puts his head or feelings or will in front of the Spirit within him, makes mistakes, and confuses many of the other children of God. The difference between the two is that when rebuked, one eventually is convicted and repents. The other splits the church and breaks the hearts of many of the children he's been confusing. That's just my two cents. Mostly, this is one of the most important questions in practical Christianity, and when you asked it you just fired me up to think about it. So, those are my first thoughts. I look forward to your conclusions!
Sunday, August 05, 2007
Off for the week....
...unless I have a chance to hit the 'net in Vail! Hubby's business trip includes spouses...yay!
Leaving the kids home and in charge...yikes.
When I get back, let's talk heresy!
Leaving the kids home and in charge...yikes.
When I get back, let's talk heresy!
Saturday, August 04, 2007
Passing of friends. . .
Please keep my neighbor, Linda, in prayer. Her husband, Mark, died suddenly last night. He had been doing some ministry work with kids; canoeing and such. He came home, sat down and asked for a glass of tea. He passed out, and they took him to the hospital where he passed away. Mark was going to be 50 or 51 this year, and had some bypass surgery about 10 years ago. He was a cyclist and an energetic man. He was also a pilot, and told me some wild stories about his dad and him surviving a couple of close calls in the air. When our neighbor John, around our age, died suddenly last year, Mark voiced some fear to me about his own health with his heart history. But, he said, he wasn't going to let fear stop him from living the life he had. . .he would do what he wanted until the Lord called him home.
Amen.
Amen.
Thursday, August 02, 2007
On my mind...
Pearlie honored and tagged me with a cool whatever you call it. I'm already working on it, and it has been sweet to contemplate all of your names written in a unique way.
Do any of you caregive someone who is difficult to get along with? I have to take my brother to the dentist in Dallas today. I've not touched much on this subject, but he is alienating my husband and sons by the way he treats me--and them on occasion. Any advice?
I've got a post on my mind, but of course, must research a bit. In your mind, what is a heretic?
Back later. Blessings!
Do any of you caregive someone who is difficult to get along with? I have to take my brother to the dentist in Dallas today. I've not touched much on this subject, but he is alienating my husband and sons by the way he treats me--and them on occasion. Any advice?
I've got a post on my mind, but of course, must research a bit. In your mind, what is a heretic?
Back later. Blessings!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)