HOLY SCRIPTURES
Jubilee Temple
HOLY SCRIPTURES
THE OLD TESTAMENT
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth,
1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra,
Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, The Song of
Songs, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel,
Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habbakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai,
Zechariah, Malachi.
THE NEW TESTAMENT
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians,
Galatians, Ephesian, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2
Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, 1
Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, Revelation.
All the above books are given by inspiration of God and are to be the
only guide of faith and life.
The books commonly called Apocrypha are no part of the holy inspired
Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the Jubilee Temple. But,
may be read for general edification as any other writings of men.
By the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit all things necessary for God's
own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is expressly set down in
Scripture or by Spiritual discernment may be deduced from Scripture:
unto which nothing at any time is to be added.
The rule of interpretation of holy Scripture is Spiritual in nature and
therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any
Scripture, it must be discerned in prayer and Holy guidance from God
Himself. Therefore, Scripture will prove Scripture and the conclusion
will not oppose the Divine expression found in the totality of the 66
books of Scripture.
--
Bro. Frank
Jubilee Temple
http://homepages.infoseek.com/~jubileetemple/index.html
For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God,
our Savior; who desires to have all men to be saved,
and come to full knowledge of the truth. 1 Timothy 2:3,4
Dave Oldridge
Temple <jte...@san.rr.com> wrote:
>
>HOLY SCRIPTURES
>
>THE OLD TESTAMENT
>
>Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth,
>1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra,
>Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, The Song of
>Songs, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel,
>Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habbakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai,
>Zechariah, Malachi.
>
>THE NEW TESTAMENT
>
>Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians,
>Galatians, Ephesian, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2
>Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, 1
>Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, Revelation.
>
>All the above books are given by inspiration of God and are to be the
>only guide of faith and life.
>
>The books commonly called Apocrypha are no part of the holy inspired
>Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the Jubilee Temple. But,
>may be read for general edification as any other writings of men.
So you accept the work of the 4th Century bishops who assembled and
declared the canon of the New Testament while rejecting their findings
with regard to the Old Testament, preferring instead, the work of
Luther and Calvin? Have I got this part straight?
>By the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit all things necessary for God's
>own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is expressly set down in
>Scripture or by Spiritual discernment may be deduced from Scripture:
>unto which nothing at any time is to be added.
Does this mean that you're claiming that the Holy Spirit has somehow
vouchsafed to you, through Luther and Calvin a revelation about the
non-canonicity of these works that was withheld from the Church for
over 1200 years?
>The rule of interpretation of holy Scripture is Spiritual in nature and
>therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any
>Scripture, it must be discerned in prayer and Holy guidance from God
>Himself. Therefore, Scripture will prove Scripture and the conclusion
>will not oppose the Divine expression found in the totality of the 66
>books of Scripture.
Seems to me that you have arrogated to your own selves some
prerogatives that should pertain only to the lineal successors of the
apostles. Without actually demonstrating a lineage, you're making
some pretty radical claims, including one of special (negative)
revelation to Luther and Calvin specifically about the canon of
scripture.
Dave Oldridge
Jubilee Temple
Dave Oldridge wrote:
> Jubilee Temple wrote:
>
> >All the above books are given by inspiration of God and are to be the
> >only guide of faith and life.
> >
> >The books commonly called Apocrypha are no part of the holy inspired
> >Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the Jubilee Temple. But,
> >may be read for general edification as any other writings of men.
> So you accept the work of the 4th Century bishops who assembled and
> declared the canon of the New Testament while rejecting their findings
> with regard to the Old Testament, preferring instead, the work of
> Luther and Calvin? Have I got this part straight?
Doubt it.
The 66 books of the canonical Bible is all a Holy Spirit filled person
need for a "guide of faith and life."
> >By the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit all things necessary for God's
> >own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is expressly set down in
> >Scripture or by Spiritual discernment may be deduced from Scripture:
> >unto which nothing at any time is to be added.
> Does this mean that you're claiming that the Holy Spirit has somehow
> vouchsafed to you, through Luther and Calvin a revelation about the
> non-canonicity of these works that was withheld from the Church for
> over 1200 years?
No.
It means the 66 books of the canonical Bible is all a Holy Spirit filled
person need for "things necessary for God's own glory, man's salvation,
faith and life."
> Seems to me that you have arrogated to your own selves some
> prerogatives that should pertain only to the lineal successors of the
> apostles. Without actually demonstrating a lineage, you're making
> some pretty radical claims, including one of special (negative)
> revelation to Luther and Calvin specifically about the canon of
> scripture.
No claimed successor to the apostles has an effect on my salvation! My
salvation is totally dependent of God's goodwill and mercy.
JohnJ
Oldridge) wrote:
Frank had written:
>>The books commonly called Apocrypha are no part of the holy inspired
>>Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the Jubilee Temple. But,
>>may be read for general edification as any other writings of men.
Dave commented:
>So you accept the work of the 4th Century bishops who assembled and
>declared the canon of the New Testament while rejecting their findings
>with regard to the Old Testament, preferring instead, the work of
>Luther and Calvin? Have I got this part straight?
From the Encyclopedia Britannica:
There are several levels of dubiety within the general concept of
apocryphal works in Judeo-Christian biblical writings. Apocrypha per
se are outside the canon, not considered divinely inspired but
regarded as worthy of study by the faithful. Pseudepigrapha are
spurious works ostensibly written by a biblical figure.
Deuterocanonical works are those that are accepted in one canon but
not in all.
At the time when Greek was the common spoken language in the
Mediterranean region, the Old Testament--the Hebrew Bible--was
incomprehensible to most of the population. For this reason, Jewish
scholars produced the Septuagint, a translation of the Old Testament
books from various Hebrew texts, along with fragments in Aramaic, into
Greek. That version incorporated a number of works that later,
non-Hellenistic Jewish scholarship at the Council of Jamnia (AD 90)
identified as being outside the authentic Hebrew canon. The Talmud
separates these works as Sefarim Hizonim (Extraneous Books).
The Septuagint was an important basis for St. Jerome's translation of
the Old Testament into Latin for the Vulgate Bible; and, although he
had doubts about the authenticity of some of the apocryphal works that
it contained (he was the first to employ the word apocrypha in the
sense of "noncanonical"), he was overruled, and most of them were
included in the Vulgate. On April 8, 1546, the Council of Trent
declared the canonicity of nearly the entire Vulgate, excluding only
the Third and Fourth Books of Maccabees, the Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm
151, and the First and Second Books of Esdras. Eastern Christendom,
meanwhile, had accepted some of the Old Testament apocrypha--Tobit,
Judith, the Wisdom of Solomon, and Ecclesiasticus (Wisdom of Jesus the
Son of Sirach)--but rejected the rest.
Copyright © 1994-1999 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.
It helps to have a little reference material from supposedly an
unbiased source.
JohnJ: A Christian friend. I can be contacted by
removing the "OK" from my username. john...@usa.net
Dave Oldridge
Temple <jte...@san.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>Dave Oldridge wrote:
>
>> Jubilee Temple wrote:
>>
>> >All the above books are given by inspiration of God and are to be the
>> >only guide of faith and life.
>> >
>> >The books commonly called Apocrypha are no part of the holy inspired
>> >Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the Jubilee Temple. But,
>> >may be read for general edification as any other writings of men.
>
>
>
>> So you accept the work of the 4th Century bishops who assembled and
>> declared the canon of the New Testament while rejecting their findings
>> with regard to the Old Testament, preferring instead, the work of
>> Luther and Calvin? Have I got this part straight?
>
>
>Doubt it.
>
>The 66 books of the canonical Bible is all a Holy Spirit filled person
>need for a "guide of faith and life."
How do you know this. What about the other 7 or 8 books from the
Septuagint?
>> >By the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit all things necessary for God's
>> >own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is expressly set down in
>> >Scripture or by Spiritual discernment may be deduced from Scripture:
>> >unto which nothing at any time is to be added.
>
>
>> Does this mean that you're claiming that the Holy Spirit has somehow
>> vouchsafed to you, through Luther and Calvin a revelation about the
>> non-canonicity of these works that was withheld from the Church for
>> over 1200 years?
>
>
>No.
>
>It means the 66 books of the canonical Bible is all a Holy Spirit filled
>person need for "things necessary for God's own glory, man's salvation,
>faith and life."
How do you know this? Repeating the mantra won't make it any more
correct. There are 73 books in my Bible, including the 66 you allude
to (and some parts of those that fell to Luther's scissors).
>> Seems to me that you have arrogated to your own selves some
>> prerogatives that should pertain only to the lineal successors of the
>> apostles. Without actually demonstrating a lineage, you're making
>> some pretty radical claims, including one of special (negative)
>> revelation to Luther and Calvin specifically about the canon of
>> scripture.
>
>
>No claimed successor to the apostles has an effect on my salvation! My
>salvation is totally dependent of God's goodwill and mercy.
That is true, but you are claiming special knowledge without a shred
of real evidence for your claims. When, where, to whom and how was
this 66-book sutff revealed. It's not IN the Bible, so if you're
claiming sola scriptura, you have the problem that your assertions
about the canon are NOT scriptural by ANY extant canon.
So, I repeat. How do you know what is Holy Scripture and what isn't?
Dave Oldridge
Dave Oldridge
john...@usa.net (JohnJ) wrote:
>On Fri, 30 Apr 1999 17:56:17 GMT, dold...@ocean.coastalw.com (Dave
>Oldridge) wrote:
>
>Frank had written:
>>>The books commonly called Apocrypha are no part of the holy inspired
>>>Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the Jubilee Temple. But,
>>>may be read for general edification as any other writings of men.
>
>Dave commented:
>>So you accept the work of the 4th Century bishops who assembled and
>>declared the canon of the New Testament while rejecting their findings
>>with regard to the Old Testament, preferring instead, the work of
>>Luther and Calvin? Have I got this part straight?
>
>From the Encyclopedia Britannica:
>
>There are several levels of dubiety within the general concept of
>apocryphal works in Judeo-Christian biblical writings. Apocrypha per
>se are outside the canon, not considered divinely inspired but
>regarded as worthy of study by the faithful. Pseudepigrapha are
>spurious works ostensibly written by a biblical figure.
>Deuterocanonical works are those that are accepted in one canon but
>not in all.
These latter are the ones to which I allude. They were declared canon
by the same committees that chose the New Testament canon. That
decision has never been rescinded except unilaterally by Luther and
Calvin and their followers.
>At the time when Greek was the common spoken language in the
>Mediterranean region, the Old Testament--the Hebrew Bible--was
>incomprehensible to most of the population. For this reason, Jewish
>scholars produced the Septuagint, a translation of the Old Testament
>books from various Hebrew texts, along with fragments in Aramaic, into
>Greek. That version incorporated a number of works that later,
>non-Hellenistic Jewish scholarship at the Council of Jamnia (AD 90)
>identified as being outside the authentic Hebrew canon. The Talmud
>separates these works as Sefarim Hizonim (Extraneous Books).
>
>The Septuagint was an important basis for St. Jerome's translation of
>the Old Testament into Latin for the Vulgate Bible; and, although he
>had doubts about the authenticity of some of the apocryphal works that
>it contained (he was the first to employ the word apocrypha in the
>sense of "noncanonical"), he was overruled, and most of them were
>included in the Vulgate. On April 8, 1546, the Council of Trent
Yep. And he was overruled because they were traditionally an accepted
part of the Christion canon from the beginning. The Jamnia conference
was convened to purge ALL traces of Hellenism, including Christianity.
My whole point is that the Jamnia canon was NOT accepted by Christians
until Luther had a problem with indulgences and decided to alter the
doctrines on which they were based instead of dealing directly with
the abuse of power.
Dave Oldridge
*** Joe ***
Oldridge) wrote:
>How do you know this? Repeating the mantra won't make it any more
>correct. There are 73 books in my Bible, including the 66 you allude
>to (and some parts of those that fell to Luther's scissors).
>That is true, but you are claiming special knowledge without a shred
>of real evidence for your claims. When, where, to whom and how was
>this 66-book sutff revealed. It's not IN the Bible, so if you're
>claiming sola scriptura, you have the problem that your assertions
>about the canon are NOT scriptural by ANY extant canon.
>So, I repeat. How do you know what is Holy Scripture and what isn't?
>Dave Oldridge
Hi Dave
How do you know the Koran, Yogi, the Book of Mormon, and etc isn't
Holy Scripture?
---
Jesus Christ is Lord.
*** Joe ***
The DataRat
"How do you know the Koran, Yogi,
the Book of Mormon, and etc isn't
Holy Scripture?"
No wonder ***Joe*** is a follower of
Frank-the-Heretic !
The DataRat
*** Joe ***
wrote:
>No wonder ***Joe*** is a follower of
>Frank-the-Heretic !
>The DataRat
Hello DataRat
Are you a Christian?
Dave Oldridge
(*** Joe ***) wrote:
>On Sat, 01 May 1999 23:29:57 GMT, dold...@ocean.coastalw.com (Dave
>Oldridge) wrote:
>
>
>>How do you know this? Repeating the mantra won't make it any more
>>correct. There are 73 books in my Bible, including the 66 you allude
>>to (and some parts of those that fell to Luther's scissors).
>
>>That is true, but you are claiming special knowledge without a shred
>>of real evidence for your claims. When, where, to whom and how was
>>this 66-book sutff revealed. It's not IN the Bible, so if you're
>>claiming sola scriptura, you have the problem that your assertions
>>about the canon are NOT scriptural by ANY extant canon.
>
>>So, I repeat. How do you know what is Holy Scripture and what isn't?
>
>>Dave Oldridge
>
>Hi Dave
>How do you know the Koran, Yogi, the Book of Mormon, and etc isn't
>Holy Scripture?
The short answer is that no ecmuenical council ever declared any of
them to be.
Dave Oldridge
Jubilee Temple
Dave Oldridge wrote:
> How do you know this. What about the other 7 or 8 books from the
> Septuagint?
Dave,
Let's cut to the chase!
What facts/knowledge are in these "7 or 8 books" that we need to know
that is necessary for God's own glory, man's salvation, faith and life
that we DO NOT have in the canonical 66?
John Donchig
>
> Dave Oldridge wrote:
>
> > How do you know this. What about the other 7 or 8 books from the
> > Septuagint?
>
> Dave,
>
> Let's cut to the chase!
>
> What facts/knowledge are in these "7 or 8 books" that we need to know
> that is necessary for God's own glory, man's salvation, faith and life
> that we DO NOT have in the canonical 66?
It's all a matter of perspective. The Jews have 39 canonical books;
Protestants have 66; Catholics have more than that. To speak of the
canonical 66 is misleading, for it does not pertain to all.
John D.
--
The alt.fan.starwars FAQ:
http://members.tripod.com/~Skywalker_19/afs-faq.html
http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Union/8526/afs-faq.html
*** Joe ***
Oldridge) wrote:
>The short answer is that no ecmuenical council ever declared any of
>them to be.
Hi Dave
Who is the ecmuenical council?
The DataRat
"Who is the ecmuenical council?"
An ecumenical council is a meeting
of representatives of all Christian
churches. The Romanist church likes
to claim it's councils are "ecumenical",
but -with only their representatives
present- they're obviously not.
Many believe that ecumenical councils
have authority to add or subtract from
what God says in the Bible. Revelation
22:18-19 puts the lie to that !
Ecumenical councils only have
authority to ratify the truth already presented
by God in His Word. This is the right of ANY
Believer !
The DataRat
Dave Oldridge
Temple <jte...@san.rr.com> wrote:
>
>Dave Oldridge wrote:
>
>> How do you know this. What about the other 7 or 8 books from the
>> Septuagint?
>
>
>Dave,
>
>Let's cut to the chase!
>
>What facts/knowledge are in these "7 or 8 books" that we need to know
>that is necessary for God's own glory, man's salvation, faith and life
>that we DO NOT have in the canonical 66?
What facts/knowledge are ABSENT from John's gospel that are critical
to salvation? Yet you insist on iscluding 66 books but excluding
others. Where is your authority? Yes, let's cut to the chase and not
dabble in side issues.
Dave Oldridge
Dave Oldridge
Donchig <wol...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Jubilee Temple wrote:
>>
>> Dave Oldridge wrote:
>>
>> > How do you know this. What about the other 7 or 8 books from the
>> > Septuagint?
>>
>> Dave,
>>
>> Let's cut to the chase!
>>
>> What facts/knowledge are in these "7 or 8 books" that we need to know
>> that is necessary for God's own glory, man's salvation, faith and life
>> that we DO NOT have in the canonical 66?
>
>It's all a matter of perspective. The Jews have 39 canonical books;
>Protestants have 66; Catholics have more than that. To speak of the
>canonical 66 is misleading, for it does not pertain to all.
My point exactly. It varies depending on which TRADITION one follows.
Dave Oldridge
Jubilee Temple
> Jubilee Temple wrote:
>
> >What facts/knowledge are in these "7 or 8 books" that we need to know
> >that is necessary for God's own glory, man's salvation, faith and life
> >that we DO NOT have in the canonical 66?
Dave Oldridge wrote:
> What facts/knowledge are ABSENT from John's gospel that are critical
> to salvation? Yet you insist on iscluding 66 books but excluding
> others. Where is your authority? Yes, let's cut to the chase and not
> dabble in side issues.
>
> Dave Oldridge
Dave,
If you can show me ANYTHING in those "7 or 8 books" that were so
'erroneously' not canonized, that is pertinent to God's own glory,
man's salvation, faith and life; I will then, consider your argument.
Otherwise, what is the point of this debate.
*** Joe ***
wrote: snip
So the the ecmuenical council is a crock of bull.
Thank you DataRat for you help.
Kevin & Amy
Amy
-- "Grace alone, through faith alone, because of Christ alone"
Dave Oldridge
(*** Joe ***) wrote:
>On Sun, 02 May 1999 21:52:14 GMT, dold...@ocean.coastalw.com (Dave
>Oldridge) wrote:
>
>>The short answer is that no ecmuenical council ever declared any of
>>them to be.
>
>Hi Dave
>Who is the ecmuenical council?
A full council of the bishops in the apostolic succession of Christ.
That is to say any bishop consecrated by one or more bishops
cosecrated by one or more bishops in any direct line back to the
apostles.
The RCC deems it an ecumenical council if THEIR bishops are present.
I do not. However, at the time that the NT canon was approved, there
were no other rites.
Dave Oldridge
The DataRat
"Ecumenical councils can be a great source of
strength for godly churches in our country."
Amy, when have we had a truly "ecumenical"
council in the last few centuries ?
The DataRat
*** Joe ***
wrote: snip
Hi Amy
Who is the Ecumenical council?
*** Joe ***
Oldridge) wrote: snip
>The RCC deems it an ecumenical council if THEIR bishops are present.
>I do not.
snip
Hello Dave
I think we are is agreement with the above.
Kevin & Amy
DataRat, sadly, there is no "THE" ecumenical council. We haven't had a full-fledged working council in the last few centuries as you said, much to the detriment of the true church of our Lord. But there are smaller attempts which we can pray will grow into one. Examples of such "ecumenical councils" are the Confederation of Reformed Evangelicals <http://www.crepres.org/>, the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals <http://www.alliancenet.org/>, and the World Congress of Fundamentalists <http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/3440/congress.html>. While none are perfect the idea is to show unity in truth among the various denominations. By the way, none of these are related to the RCC that I am aware of.
Amy
Kevin & Amy
As I just wrote in a post to DataRat, there is no "THE" Ecumenical council for the true Church that I am aware of. However, there are attempts being made to establish one. I believe that this is a good thing *IF* it is established in God's Word, and the leaders and participants keep their eyes on Christ and take seriously and reverently the godly authority and responsibility God has laid on them. Examples of such "ecumenical councils" that have been formed so far are the Confederation of Reformed Evangelicals <http://www.crepres.org/>, the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals <http://www.alliancenet.org/>, and the World Congress of Fundamentalists <http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/3440/congress.html>.
Amy
-- "Grace alone, through faith alone, because of Christ alone"
In article <372eaab4...@news.prodigy.net> , po...@ng.net (*** Joe ***) wrote:
On Tue, 04 May 1999 00:40:01 GMT, "Kevin & Amy" <kevi...@email.com>
wrote: snip
Hi Amy
Who is the Ecumenical council?
The DataRat
"But there are smaller attempts which we can pray will
grow into one. Examples of such 'ecumenical councils'
are the Confederation of Reformed Evangelicals..."
Amy, the word "ecumenical" means:
"general; universal; worldwide" ( Random
House Electronic Dictionary )
The councils you speak of, as great as they are, do
NOT qualify as ecumenical councils. There is ~no~
"THE ecumenical council". Anytime representatives
from at least ~most~ Christian churches throughout
the world meet, it is "a ecumenical council".
What you mention sounds similar, but doubt that they
have representatives from ~most~ Christian churches
( even discounting pseudo-Christian churches like
the RCC, RCA, UMC, UU, PC-USA, etc. ).
And, as the Calvinist Rodent is sure you are aware,
the term "ecumenical" has largely been co-opted by
the PoMo churches to mean Christians getting into
bed with liberals and worse.
Bro. Rat is familiar with the Alliance of Confessing
Evangelicals -a great organization ! He shall check
on the other groups you mention, and he thanks you
for the URLs.
Your Pal,
The DataRat
Eric Sneddon
Amy, when have we had a truly "ecumenical"
council in the last few centuries ?
The DataRat
--
Eric
;¬]
And Sharkey says: Hey Kemosabe! Long time no see.
He says: Hey sport. You connect the dots. You pick up the pieces.
Sharkey's Night, Laurie Anderson
John Donchig
>
> "Who is the ecmuenical council?"
>
> of representatives of all Christian
> churches. The Romanist church likes
Why do you insist on calling us "Romanist"? It's derogatory. Simply
say "Catholic" or even "Roman."
> to claim it's councils are "ecumenical",
> but -with only their representatives
> present- they're obviously not.
>
> Many believe that ecumenical councils
> have authority to add or subtract from
> what God says in the Bible. Revelation
> 22:18-19 puts the lie to that !
This passage only literally applies to Revelation itself.
> Ecumenical councils only have
> authority to ratify the truth already presented
> by God in His Word. This is the right of ANY
> Believer !
What is God's Word though? Keep in mind that the Catholic Church
ratified each and every book in your Bible. If a group of men 1500
years ago hadn't decided to keep "Acts" or "Hebrews", you likely
wouldn't be reading them.
*** Joe ***
wrote:
Hello Amy
I think the true eumenical council is Jesus Christ. Thank God for
giving us His Holy Spirit.
Thank you Amy, have a very nice day.
The DataRat
"Why do you insist on calling us 'Romanist'?
It's derogatory. Simply say 'Catholic' or even
'Roman'."
Not an insult, but The DataRat won't argue with
you if you ~insist~ on taking it that way.
Can't call you "Catholic", because Bro. Rat doesn't
believe your church is the Universal Church.
"Roman" seems just as inappropriate, as it refers
to people who live in the city of Rome, Italy.
The Reformed Rodent thought "Romanists" less
offensive than "papists".
What the term "Romanist" intends to convey is
that your organization is a local church that
pretends to speak, universally, for ALL Christendom.
Sorry, but we utterly reject that !
"This passage only literally applies to Revelation
itself."
ONLY if you believe the Bible is a collection of
disparate human writings.
If the writing of Scripture was superintended
by God, every part of the Bible has application
to the ENTIRE Bible.
"What is God's Word though?"
You sound like Pilate asking "What is truth?'.
If you have to ask, no answer will satisfy
you. Christians know, but their answer is
foolishness to unbelievers.
"Keep in mind that the Catholic Church
ratified each and every book in your Bible."
So did the Christian church. If you guys
"ratified" it, too, why don't you follow it instead
of traditions-of-men ?
"If a group of men 1500 years ago hadn't decided
to keep 'Acts' or 'Hebrews', you likely wouldn't be
reading them."
Is it the official Romanist belief that men can
thwart God's will ? That God's Holy Word is
at the mercy of "a group of men" ?
The DataRat
The DataRat
"I think the true eumenical council is Jesus Christ."
No, ***Joe***, ecumenical councils are an ideal
that the imperfect, visible Church has never been
able to live up to.
The Reformed Rodent's point in all of this was
only to warn against false ecumenical councils.
A real one would be great !
The DataRat
GoldRush
You are most correct as to the meaning of ecumenical.
True ecumenism is universal, and must accept all faiths;
therefore a danger because of doctrines being compromised
in order "for everyone to get along."
The groups that Kevin and Amy endorse are Presbytery
in nature. Heirarchy of overseers for overseers.
We fear, impersonal and political, in the long run.
We believe the churches should be
local assemblies, personally and intimately
answerable only amongst and to themselves,
with Elders overseeing the truth of the Gospel of Christ and
protecting the flock from error and harm.
--
GoldRush
For Scriptures & Christian Studies
visit http://www.mlode.com/~jrrush
OrlandoFlorida
I sincerely doubt if any ecumenical council would be
genuinely interested in serving God, just as no world
government could ever serve the interests of true
justice. It seems that the more globally powerful men
become, the more their thoughts turn to evil. Every
time a global council of any type is mentioned, I
cannot help but to think of the Tower of Babel.
OrlandoFlorida
I agree with you, GoldRush. Every time I am confronted
with the concept of globalism, whether political or
ecumenism, I think of the Tower of Babel.
Eric Sneddon
The DataRat wrote:
> An ecumenical council is a meeting
> of representatives of all Christian
> churches. The Romanist church likes
> to claim it's councils are "ecumenical",
> but -with only their representatives
> present- they're obviously not.
The "Romanists" of course, only recognize legitimate Churches. You don't
see the Reformed Churches welcoming Unitarians to their councils do you?
When all else fails excommunicate, censure, or eliminate the dissenters
and hold the councils in absentia.
> Many believe that ecumenical councils
> have authority to add or subtract from
> what God says in the Bible. Revelation
> 22:18-19 puts the lie to that !
Rev 22:18-19 applies to the book of Revelation, and not to the Cannon or
its interpretation. What God says in the Bible is laid out in the
Gospels, everything else is an addition to that. (Rev 22:18-19 "I warn
everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone
adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this
book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God
will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy
city, which are described in this book.") The Gospels are not Prophecy,
they are the story of the direct contact between man and God. The
Epistles are not Prophecy, they are explainations. The Book of
Revelation is not the psychic friends network, it is revelation.
> Ecumenical councils only have
> authority to ratify the truth already presented
> by God in His Word. This is the right of ANY
> Believer !
As any Christian already knows The Word is Christ, the word is the
Gospel, the truth continually unfolds, and revelation is an ongoing
process.
--
Eric
;柵
OrlandoFlorida
>In article <372F8F67...@mlode.com>,
> GoldRush <jrr...@mlode.com> wrote:
>> DataRat,
>>
>> You are most correct as to the meaning of ecumenical.
>>
>> True ecumenism is universal, and must accept all faiths;
>> therefore a danger because of doctrines being compromised
>> in order "for everyone to get along."
>>
>> The groups that Kevin and Amy endorse are Presbytery
>> in nature. Heirarchy of overseers for overseers.
>>
>> We fear, impersonal and political, in the long run.
>>
>> We believe the churches should be
>> local assemblies, personally and intimately
>> answerable only amongst and to themselves,
>> with Elders overseeing the truth of the Gospel of Christ and
>> protecting the flock from error and harm.
>
>
>Only God can can do this! Do you believe another man by wrong doctrine can
>take even one of God's children from Him? Who are you, really?
Hi Joe,
False prophets can indeed lead the masses astray. The Bible
tells us this and warns us. If we had a unified, one-world church
organization, it would be incredibly easy for false prophets to
seize the reins of power. As GoldRush wisely points out, if
church organizations are kept localized, it would be much more
difficult for false prophets to invade and conquer each and every
one of them.
"Now the Spirit speaketh expressly that, in the latter times,
some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing
spirits, and doctrines of demons [devils]."
- 1 Timothy 4:1
GoldRush
how silly of you to believe a man can save another
man from error or
harm.
Only God can can do this! Do you believe another
man by wrong doctrine
can
take even one of God's children from Him? Who
are you, really?
It was my responsibility to be an Elder in our
church, and
the Lord laid the responsibility of the flock
upon me, as an
under-shepherd to protect the flock from the
predators and
enemies. It was my job to stand for God's
Word, and not
allow it to be compromised or denigrated.
It was my job to
guard Truth and the name of Jesus Christ.
You are correct. It is ultimately God who keeps His own.
No doubt of that.
But, He has ordained there to be Elders in the
local assemblies
to perform that function through His Holy Spirit.
That was my job, and I took it very seriously.
Still do, and still tend to wear that hat.
It is the responsibility of every true Christian
to oppose every
false way; whether an Elder or not.
Your remark and attitude is fatalistic.
Jim
GoldRush
Glad we are in agreement on this, because it is a hard thing
to oppose . . .it seems so good on the surface.
Human nature and reality tells us that such organizations will
never remain pure or accurate, but will only invite compromise,
abuse, distortion, and power play.
As you so wisely state in your next post, the lesson of the
Tower of Babel most certainly applies.
There is no Scripture that we are aware of that would support
generalized, or global ecumenical councils.
John Donchig
> thwart God's will ? That God's Holy Word is
> at the mercy of "a group of men" ?
Which bible do you read? Please let me know. Also, choose a passage of
50 words or more and transcibe it for me.
Jubilee Temple
OrlandoFlorida wrote:
> Hi Joe,
>
> False prophets can indeed lead the masses astray. The Bible
> tells us this and warns us. If we had a unified, one-world church
> organization, it would be incredibly easy for false prophets to
> seize the reins of power. As GoldRush wisely points out, if
> church organizations are kept localized, it would be much more
> difficult for false prophets to invade and conquer each and every
> one of them.
The larger an organization, any organization, the more that consensus is
needed. Consensus is NOT leadership! A church body needs leadership not
consensus.
Jubilee Temple
OrlandoFlorida wrote:
> Jubilee Temple wrote:
>
> >The larger an organization, any organization, the more that consensus is
> >needed. Consensus is NOT leadership! A church body needs leadership not
> >consensus.
> I understand the point you are making, in that such large
> organizations might be structured along democratic lines,
> where the concept of consenses should be followed.
> Yet, it is undeniable that a few powerful leaders will hold
> sway over worldwide organizations, for no other reason
> than their access to great quantities of wealth would give to
> them a great influence and would perhaps even allow them
> to purchase support. You no doubt have seen for yourself
> how a few powerful organs of the media can sway the masses
> in the United States. The larger the organization, the more
> prone it will be for powerful combinations to seize control, if
> not openly, then at least behind the scenes, far removed from
> the eyes of the local constituencies.
I believe it was Lady Margaret Thacther who said "Leadership by
consensus, is not leadership at-all."
Orlando,
Nothing will kill a church quicker than having the laity, by majority
rule, make doctrine.
Glenn Wright
> Is it the official Romanist belief that men can
> thwart God's will ? That God's Holy Word is
> at the mercy of "a group of men" ?
Dear Rat:
No.
Fundamentalists twisted and distorted God's Word
when they used Genesis 9:25 as a justification for
the enslavement of African people. Canaan, the son
of Ham--regarded as the progenitor of African people--
was cursed to be a slave. This is a perfect example
of how God's Holy Word can be used to rationalize
the most hideous and perverted actions. That is why,
as a Catholic, I am grateful for the guidance of the
Magisterium and Sacred Tradition.
Joe
GoldRush <jrr...@mlode.com> wrote:
> DataRat,
>
> You are most correct as to the meaning of ecumenical.
>
> True ecumenism is universal, and must accept all faiths;
> therefore a danger because of doctrines being compromised
> in order "for everyone to get along."
>
> The groups that Kevin and Amy endorse are Presbytery
> in nature. Heirarchy of overseers for overseers.
>
> We fear, impersonal and political, in the long run.
>
> We believe the churches should be
> local assemblies, personally and intimately
> answerable only amongst and to themselves,
> with Elders overseeing the truth of the Gospel of Christ and
> protecting the flock from error and harm.
how silly of you to believe a man can save another man from error or harm.
Only God can can do this! Do you believe another man by wrong doctrine can
take even one of God's children from Him? Who are you, really?
>
> --
> GoldRush
>
> For Scriptures & Christian Studies
> visit http://www.mlode.com/~jrrush
>
>
--
><>..><>..><>
Joe
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
*** Joe ***
wrote:
>No, ***Joe***, ecumenical councils are an ideal
>that the imperfect, visible Church has never been
>able to live up to.
snip
I think you maybe right... however Jesus Christ is the Church and He
was visable and He lived up to it.
Take care,
OrlandoFlorida
>
>OrlandoFlorida wrote:
>
>> Hi Joe,
>>
>> False prophets can indeed lead the masses astray. The Bible
>> tells us this and warns us. If we had a unified, one-world church
>> organization, it would be incredibly easy for false prophets to
>> seize the reins of power. As GoldRush wisely points out, if
>> church organizations are kept localized, it would be much more
>> difficult for false prophets to invade and conquer each and every
>> one of them.
>
>
>
The DataRat
"how silly of you to believe a man can save
another man from error or harm. Only God
can can do this!"
How silly of you to think that God doesn't
use men to do this !
The DataRat
The DataRat
"I sincerely doubt if any ecumenical council would be
genuinely interested in serving God, just as no world
government could ever serve the interests of true
justice."
Agreed.
The DataRat
The DataRat
"Jesus Christ is the Church and He
was visable and He lived up to it."
Christ went to be at the right hand
of the Father ( Matthew 26:64, Psalm
110:1, Matthew 22:44 ). He was here
in the flesh, but now He is gone ( Luke
24:51 ).
The visible church currently is an
imperfect, external institution. The Body
of Christ -the invisible, true Church-
being present but not seen in it's totality.
The DataRat
The DataRat
"There is no Scripture that we are aware
of that would support generalized, or global
ecumenical councils."
Correct !
And, none saying -as the Romanists maintain-
that such councils can add traditions to God's
Word.
Be nice if we could have an ecumenical
council that would be faithful. Ain't going to
happen, though !
Bro. Rat agrees with Amy that there is much
to be gained from genuine conferences of
true Believers submitted to the Lord. Examples
are the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals,
and the Synod of Dort.
But, we got to watch these guys likes hawks.
They have no authority to create extra-Biblical
doctrines like the Romanist councils are wont to
do !
The DataRat
The DataRat
"Which bible do you read? Please let me know.
Also, choose a passage of 50 words or more and
transcibe it for me."
You've seen The DataRat's verse citations here
in the newsgroups. He primarily uses the NASB
and NIV; secondarily the NKJ; and occasionally
the KJV, ASV, or NLT.
You want transcriptions from any of these
translations, go to:
http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?
and:
http://www.supernet.net/~chrisd/home/bible.html
The DataRat
The DataRat
"Fundamentalists twisted and distorted God's Word
when they used Genesis 9:25 as a justification for
the enslavement of African people ...That is why,
as a Catholic, I am grateful for the guidance of the
Magisterium and Sacred Tradition."
We'll let all the people enslaved in the New World
by Spanish catholics know that it was just a joke !
The DataRat
bobjef...@my-dejanews.com
So you accept the work of the 4th Century bishops who assembled and
declared the canon of the New Testament while rejecting their findings
with regard to the Old Testament, preferring instead, the work of
Luther and Calvin? Have I got this part straight?
I accept the jewish scriptures along with the NT.
We have the LXX along with many Jewish voices.
I believe these are the text jesus, paul peterm and the rest used
In article <37293493....@corp.supernews.com>,
dold...@ocean.coastalw.com (Dave Oldridge) wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Apr 1999 06:59:39 -0700, in alt.christnet.bible, Jubilee
> Temple <jte...@san.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >HOLY SCRIPTURES
> >
> >THE OLD TESTAMENT
> >
> >Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth,
> >1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra,
> >Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, The Song of
> >Songs, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel,
> >Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habbakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai,
> >Zechariah, Malachi.
> >
> >THE NEW TESTAMENT
> >
> >Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians,
> >Galatians, Ephesian, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2
> >Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, 1
> >Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, Revelation.
> >
> >All the above books are given by inspiration of God and are to be the
> >only guide of faith and life.
> >
> >The books commonly called Apocrypha are no part of the holy inspired
> >Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the Jubilee Temple. But,
> >may be read for general edification as any other writings of men.
>
> So you accept the work of the 4th Century bishops who assembled and
> declared the canon of the New Testament while rejecting their findings
> with regard to the Old Testament, preferring instead, the work of
> Luther and Calvin? Have I got this part straight?
>
> >By the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit all things necessary for God's
> >own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is expressly set down in
> >Scripture or by Spiritual discernment may be deduced from Scripture:
> >unto which nothing at any time is to be added.
>
> Does this mean that you're claiming that the Holy Spirit has somehow
> vouchsafed to you, through Luther and Calvin a revelation about the
> non-canonicity of these works that was withheld from the Church for
> over 1200 years?
>
> >The rule of interpretation of holy Scripture is Spiritual in nature and
> >therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any
> >Scripture, it must be discerned in prayer and Holy guidance from God
> >Himself. Therefore, Scripture will prove Scripture and the conclusion
> >will not oppose the Divine expression found in the totality of the 66
> >books of Scripture.
>
> Seems to me that you have arrogated to your own selves some
> prerogatives that should pertain only to the lineal successors of the
> apostles. Without actually demonstrating a lineage, you're making
> some pretty radical claims, including one of special (negative)
> revelation to Luther and Calvin specifically about the canon of
> scripture.
>
> Dave Oldridge
bobjef...@my-dejanews.com
In article <372db374...@corp.supernews.com>,
dold...@ocean.coastalw.com (Dave Oldridge) wrote:
> On Sun, 02 May 1999 18:05:05 GMT, in alt.christnet.bible, po...@ng.net
> (*** Joe ***) wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 01 May 1999 23:29:57 GMT, dold...@ocean.coastalw.com (Dave
> >Oldridge) wrote:
> >
> >
> >>How do you know this? Repeating the mantra won't make it any more
> >>correct. There are 73 books in my Bible, including the 66 you allude
> >>to (and some parts of those that fell to Luther's scissors).
> >
> >>That is true, but you are claiming special knowledge without a shred
> >>of real evidence for your claims. When, where, to whom and how was
> >>this 66-book sutff revealed. It's not IN the Bible, so if you're
> >>claiming sola scriptura, you have the problem that your assertions
> >>about the canon are NOT scriptural by ANY extant canon.
> >
> >>So, I repeat. How do you know what is Holy Scripture and what isn't?
> >
> >>Dave Oldridge
> >
> >Hi Dave
> >How do you know the Koran, Yogi, the Book of Mormon, and etc isn't
> >Holy Scripture?
>
> The short answer is that no ecmuenical council ever declared any of
> them to be.
Kevin & Amy
"But there are smaller attempts which we can pray will grow into one. Examples of such 'ecumenical councils' are the Confederation of Reformed Evangelicals..."I wonder how many who have responded to her have given more than a fleeting thought to what she said? Please read her statement again, slowly and thoughtfully. I'll wait.
Finished? Good. Now, let's look at what she said.
"Smaller attempts..." we start small and local "...which we can pray will grow into one [biblically ecumenical council for those of you who've missed some of the thread]." Can any of you say that we shouldn't pray for such growth? What would such growth be evidence of? Would it not be a sign of the Gospel's success, of the spread of the Kingdom, of revival?
Or is it that none of you expect such victory to occur? Could it be that you believe that sin is mightier than grace? Could it be that you believe "Satan is alive and well on planet earth" despite the fact that Christ crushed his head at the cross and now has all authority in heaven and on earth (Matt. 28:18) and has "all power and might and dominion" (Eph. 1:21)? Are you expecting Christ to return to a tare field (Matt. 13, cp. Mark 4)? Should the bride of Christ meet Him crawling, battered and beaten, her white gown torn and bloodied? Do you not expect the "stone of stumbing" (1 Pet. 2:8), the "rock made without hands" (Dan. 2:34) to become a "great mountain" which fills "the whole earth" (Dan. 2:35)?
True, there have been ecumenical councils which have not represented the true church of Christ. The World and National Council of Churches have blasphemed our Lord many times over. It is also true that even comparitively smaller presbyteries and episcopacies have flaunted their contempt for the God of Scripture in denying its most foundational tenents. Such councils violate the third commandment and are not sanctioned by Scripture which says:
³By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.²Yet there have also been great councils (Chalcedon in 451, and Dort in 1618 for example) which have stood for truth and rebuked error. The Church spoke with one voice and was heard clearly by all.
John 13:35, KJV.
³And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it.²
2 John 1:6, KJV.
One response to Amy's post said:
We believe the churches should be local assemblies, personally and intimately answerable only amongst and to themselves...
My concern with this statement, that local assemblies should be "answerable only amongst and to themselves," is that it swings the pendulum from one error to another. While recoiling from a large pope and prelacy it only creates a smaller pope and prelacy. I have seen numerous errors and abuses in both scenarios. Independant Congregational church governments can become as unaccountable and tyrannical as the Hierarchical ones. Pastors become Popes and Inquisitors.
If a preacher of the Gospel commits adultery or theft, does this mean the office is illegitimate? No. Likewise, just because there have been bad ecumenical councils and church governments doesn't mean that the concept is wrong.
The Church of Israel had its seventy elders (Num. 11), and the Church in Acts (ch. 15) continued the pattern in the Jerusalem council. Churches, spread far and wide, had their local autonomy within this covenantal structure which fostered accountability and unity. These churches settled their own disputes (as did the Tribes in Israel, starting with groups of ten), avoiding the heathen court system (1 Cor. 6:1,2), and when matters became too great for the smaller local bodies, sister churches would meet to settle such differences. This occurred not only in matters of discipline and doctrine, but in charitable aid as well.
Individual, local churches forming a unified body the voices of many speaking as one is one application of what we learn from the Trinity, the ultimate One and Many. The unity of the Godhead does not erase the equal importance and function of each of its members (Father, Son and Spirit), nor vise versa. Likewise the visible catholicity of the Body of Christ, His Church, should not overshadow in importance the individual members which make up that Body.
Such a "world-wide" ecumenical council must start at the local level. It must start with the individual thinking covenantally. True churches, though many, are all one faith, one baptism (Eph. 4:5), so why should we not display this to the world? The knowledge of the Lord will one day cover the earth as the waters cover the seas (Isa. 11:9), so should we not expect then to see the Church speak with one voice? Should we not pray and work to that end? Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven?
The examples which Amy (my dear and wonderful wife) mentioned in her previous post are attempts to do just that. The World Congress of Fundamentalists is represented by numerous denominations (Baptist, Methodist, Brethern, Lutheran, Presbyterian, etc. -- over 2,000 delegates in all) from countries all over the world. These are local, autonomous churches doing just what the Jerusalem church did in Acts 15. The CRE and ACE are two other biblical attempts to accomplish the same thing. These are strong signs that the Church is beginning to awaken from its stupor.
As the Lion of the Church awakens from its self-induced sleep, I do not doubt that the rats (no offense DR) of humanism will attempt to cast their shadows large on the wall in order to further intimidate us. But God's Spirit is moving the hearts of His people back into his Word as they are humbled by their failures and shamed by their fear (James 4:7). We are slowly remembering how sharp and formidable that two-edged sword is. It brought down the Roman Empire. It brought forth the Reformation. I pray that we learn to wield it carefully, consistently, biblically and boldly. No more Backward Christian Soldiers! We're moving onward. When the heathen see us, let's hope and pray they don't see scattered and bickering bands of guerillas, but a unified and confident army of Christ which preaches nothing less than their total and unconditional surrender to the God in whom they live and move and have their being (Acts 17:28).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Non Nobis!
Kevin
http://southsound.com/NonNobis
non nobis domine non nobis
sed nomine tuo da gloriam
-- Psalm 115:1
The DataRat
"Or is it that none of you expect such
victory to occur?"
THAT'S probably more our attitude.
"Could it be that you believe that sin
is mightier than grace?"
We know that grace prevails in the end,
but not necessarily now. Indeed, both
Scripture and experience indicate that
-until the end- it will SEEM that Satan is
winning.
"Individual, local churches forming a unified body
the voices of many speaking as one is one
application of what we learn from the Trinity..."
A lot more could be done for unity. But, hope you
also see why a lot of us are nervous.
The strength of "protestantism" has always been that
-if one denomination went south- another one could
be formed. The DataRat attends a church ( the URC )
that had to do just that when a formerly great
denomination ( the CRC ) went to feces in a very short
period of time.
We also have the opposite example of the PC-USA,
which has merged so many times that it has no core
beliefs anymore. And ...when you believe nothing...
you'll believe ANYTHING !
"True churches, though many, are all one faith, one
baptism (Eph. 4:5), so why should we not display this
to the world?"
Agreed. We ~ought~ to. But, Satan has sown a lot
of weeds among the wheat. Humanists and PoMo's
within the church are waiting for their chance to
re-direct it away from God. This becomes easier as
the institutional scale becomes more grand.
The DataRat
Joe
DATA-transparent-Rat, You are so transparent it's laughable! You're a
want-a-be theologian! But you're too lazy, unmotivated and mentally incapable
to attend college and then seminary. Stick to what you do best; ride in
you're three- wheel car marking tires and writing parking tickets. LOL <G>
LOL <G> LOL <G>
--
><>..><>..><>
Joe
The DataRat
The web site for The DataRat's local congregation
of the URC has a page entitled "Theological Brethren".
On it is listed 11 denominations which our church
stands in substantial agreement with.
Guess this is our contribution to ecumenicalism.
God bless Amy -she has a point- but we need to
approach this issue with a lot of caution.
The DataRat
GoldRush
Nothing will kill a church quicker than having
the laity, by majority
rule, make doctrine.
Frank,
We are in complete agreement here.
(Kinda nice, isn't it?)
*** Joe ***
wrote:
>Christ went to be at the right hand
>of the Father ( Matthew 26:64, Psalm
>110:1, Matthew 22:44 ). He was here
>in the flesh, but now He is gone ( Luke
>24:51 ).
>The visible church currently is an
>imperfect, external institution. The Body
>of Christ -the invisible, true Church-
>being present but not seen in it's totality.
>The DataRat
Thank you DataRat for your insight.... and take care.
*** Joe ***
>it seems an ecumenical council did declare the 66 book to be canon
It is good to hear that they got that correct...
*** Joe ***
>Frank,
>
>We are in complete agreement here.
>
>(Kinda nice, isn't it?)
>--
>GoldRush
Wow, it sure is nice to see you two agree on something.
GoldRush
Our comments were not "fleeting," but written with complete
understanding of what Amy was saying.
The real topic here is not so much about Ecumenical Councils,
but eschatology.
Your opinions reflect the post-millennium view that there will be a
thousand year earthly reign of the church before the second
coming of Christ.
It is almost incumbent upon you and Amy to strive for revival and
establishment
of a global church establishment, in order to usher in the thousand-year
reign that you expect. This gives you an agenda of sorts, and we think
you should be honest with all here, as to your frame of reference,
outlook and
goals.
We happen to hold the amillennial view, that considers the thousand
years to be a figurative description of the church age since the time
of Christ's first visitation to His second appearing unto salvation.
We believe we reign with Jesus Christ here and now as members of
His body; the church.
We respect you and understand your perspective, but do disagree that
ecumenism has the importance that you place upon it.
The DataRat
"We happen to hold the amillennial view..."
Ditto for DataRat.
"We respect you and understand your
perspective, but do disagree that ecumenism
has the importance that you place upon it."
Ditto for DataRat.
DR
Eric Sneddon
Sometimes you totally mystify me. Keep up the good work. ;¬]
Kevin & Amy wrote:
Or is it that none of you expect such victory to occur? Could it be that you believe that sin is mightier than grace? Could it be that you believe "Satan is alive and well on planet earth" despite the fact that Christ crushed his head at the cross and now has all authority in heaven and on earth (Matt. 28:18) and has "all power and might and dominion" (Eph. 1:21)? Are you expecting Christ to return to a tare field (Matt. 13, cp. Mark 4)? Should the bride of Christ meet Him crawling, battered and beaten, her white gown torn and bloodied? Do you not expect the "stone of stumbing" (1 Pet. 2:8), the "rock made without hands" (Dan. 2:34) to become a "great mountain" which fills "the whole earth" (Dan. 2:35)?
Romans 8:37-39 NASB
But in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved
us. For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities,
nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth,
nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love
of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
--
Eric
;¬]
And Sharkey says: Hey Kemosabe! Long time no see.
He says: Hey sport. You connect the dots. You pick up the pieces.
Sharkey's Night, Laurie Anderson
John Donchig
OK, here's where my experiment starts. This is the transcription of 2
Samuel 11:2-5 from the ASV:
And it came to pass at eventide, that David arose from off his bed, and
walked upon the roof of the king's house: and from the roof he saw a
woman bathing; and the woman was very beautiful to look upon.And David
send and inquired after the woman. And one said, Is not this Bath-sheba,
the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite? And David sent
messengers, and took her; and she came in unto him, and he lay with her
(for she was purified from her uncleanness); and she returned unto her
house. And the woman conceived; and she sent and told David, and said, I
am with child.
And this is the same passage from the RSV:
It happened, late one afternoon, when David arose from his couch and was
walking upon the roof of the King's house, that he saw from the roof a
woman bathing; and the woman was very beautiful. And David sent and
inquired about the woman. And one said, "Is this not Bathshe'ba, the
daughter of Eli'am, the wife of Uriah the Hittie?" So David sent
messengers, and took her; and she came to him, and he lay with her.
(Now she was purifying herself from her uncleanness.) Then she returned
to her house. And the woman conceived; and she sent and told David, "I
am with child."
Now, there are some significant differences in the texts here. You've
said that you believe the Bible is the absolute word of God, and that it
is from his mouth, as it were, etc. etc. (Of course, I could be
remembering what someone else has said; these threads are hard to
follow). I ask you now--which of the two versions of God's Word is
correct? Wait, let me complicate matters. Which of the 25-30 versions
one can now find, in different bibles, is correct? By the reasoning
I've seen here and in other newsgroups, God's Word should be insoluble.
Someone quoted Revelations 22:18-19, and said it relates to the entire
bible. If that's so, there's actually only one true rendering. The
rest of us are damned because we read the wrong version.
John D.
--
The alt.fan.starwars FAQ:
http://members.tripod.com/~Skywalker_19/afs-faq.html
http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Union/8526/afs-faq.html
John Donchig
Acknowledged, there was a lot of slavery in South America. However,
keep in mind both the Catholic slaveholders ended slavery long before
the American slavers did, and (most importantly), I don't know of any
Brazilian slaveholders who used the Holy Bible as a justification--as
many Protestant Confederates did.
michael burt
members are in all of the demonimations. It is time, however, that they
speak up, refuse to become tolerant to sin, refuse to allow God to be
re-imaged into the image of political agendas, and refuse to allow His
Word, as it was written, to be re-imaged into the intolerance to His Word
of political correctness.
If death comes to Christian America, it will be by suicide, but it does
not have to be so.
Theology Matters, we must all listen for the Word of God, and refuse to
listen to the great deceiver. NOTE: the deceiver tries to sound and look
like God.
Your Brother in Christ
Michael
In article <37306D1A...@home.com>, The DataRat <dat...@home.com> wrote:
> "Or is it that none of you expect such
> victory to occur?"
>
>
> THAT'S probably more our attitude.
>
>
>
>
> "Could it be that you believe that sin
> is mightier than grace?"
>
>
> We know that grace prevails in the end,
> but not necessarily now. Indeed, both
> Scripture and experience indicate that
> -until the end- it will SEEM that Satan is
> winning.
>
>
>
>
> "Individual, local churches forming a unified body
> the voices of many speaking as one is one
> application of what we learn from the Trinity..."
>
>
> A lot more could be done for unity. But, hope you
> also see why a lot of us are nervous.
>
> The strength of "protestantism" has always been that
> -if one denomination went south- another one could
> be formed. The DataRat attends a church ( the URC )
> that had to do just that when a formerly great
> denomination ( the CRC ) went to feces in a very short
> period of time.
>
> We also have the opposite example of the PC-USA,
> which has merged so many times that it has no core
> beliefs anymore. And ...when you believe nothing...
> you'll believe ANYTHING !
>
>
>
>
> "True churches, though many, are all one faith, one
> baptism (Eph. 4:5), so why should we not display this
> to the world?"
>
>
> Agreed. We ~ought~ to. But, Satan has sown a lot
> of weeds among the wheat. Humanists and PoMo's
> within the church are waiting for their chance to
> re-direct it away from God. This becomes easier as
> the institutional scale becomes more grand.
>
>
> The DataRat
--
May God Bless You,
Michael
Character Counts. It is not hypocritical to set a high goal and occasionally fail. It is hypocritical to set a low goal and occasionally succeed.
benjam
> Kevin and Amy:
[...]
> Your opinions reflect the post-millennium view that there will be a
> thousand year earthly reign of the church before the second
> coming of Christ.
> We happen to hold the amillennial view, that considers the thousand
> years to be a figurative description of the church age since the time
> of Christ's first visitation to His second appearing unto salvation.
> We believe we reign with Jesus Christ here and now as members of
> His body; the church.
> GoldRush
You're both very wrong...amen!
Jesus is Lord...amen!
Ben Praising Jesus
The DataRat
"You've said that you believe the Bible is the
absolute word of God, and that it is from his
mouth, as it were, etc. etc."
The DataRat did ? When ? Quote him !
"Now, there are some significant differences in
the texts here."
What differences of substance ?
The DataRat
The DataRat
"I don't know of any Brazilian slaveholders
who used the Holy Bible as a justification"
So, your NOT knowing is proof ?
Very week argument. And, why is it limited
to Brazil ? The DataRat said "Spanish" !
The DataRat
Libertarius
The DataRat <dat...@home.com> wrote:
>
>
>"Who is the ecmuenical council?"
>
>
>
>An ecumenical council is a meeting
>of representatives of all Christian
>churches. The Romanist church likes
>to claim it's councils are "ecumenical",
>but -with only their representatives
>present- they're obviously not.
>
>Many believe that ecumenical councils
>have authority to add or subtract from
>what God says in the Bible. Revelation
>22:18-19 puts the lie to that !
>
>Ecumenical councils only have
>authority to ratify the truth already presented
>by God in His Word. This is the right of ANY
>Believer !
>
===>Where in the Bible, which you call "God's Word", does it say that
there should be a collection of books, called "Bible", consisting of those
specific pieces of literature?
Libertarius
*DON'T CONFUSE FICTION WITH REALITY*
Kevin & Amy
I wrote:
"Or is it that none of you expect such victory to occur?"
DataRat responded with:
THAT'S probably more our attitude.
Your amillenialism did not go unnoticed, DR. The GoldRush's caught my PostMil-push.
I wrote:
"Could it be that you believe that sin is mightier than grace?"
DataRat responded with:
We know that grace prevails in the end, but not necessarily now. Indeed, both Scripture and experience indicate that -until the end- it will SEEM that Satan is winning.
It "seemed" that Satan was winning UNDER THE OLD COVENANT! Read Scripture as one who lived in the first century. Considering the terrors and tribulation that surrounded them, it makes perfect sense. The final judgement of God upon apostate Israel was about to occur, and much of the NT speaks to this.
If you must interpret the Scriptures with a newspaper, at least use one from the first century! ;-)
DataRat, I highly commend "Paradise Restored" by David Chilton to you. It is a primer on postmillenial eschatology. It is highly readable, even entertaining (Chilton had quite a sense of humor which you'll appreciate). Even if you end up disagreeing with the position, you'll gain a better understanding of where numerous other Christians are coming from and what has motivated them (Postmillenialism was the dominant view of the Puritans and of such men as Jonathan Edwards, David Branierd, A. A. and Charles Hodge, Matthew Henry, J. Gresham Machen and B. B. Warfield so it is not some fringe doctrine, especially within Reformed circles!).
("Paradise Restored" and many other free books can be found at <http://metanet.net/freebooks/sidefrm1.htm>
They're in Acrobat format, and some downloads are quite large ranging from 2 to over 10 mb. But most are fully indexed and all quite helpful).
I wrote:
"Individual, local churches forming a unified body the voices of many speaking as one is one application of what we learn from the Trinity..."
DataRat responded:
A lot more could be done for unity. But, hope you also see why a lot of us are nervous.
Oh, I quite understand, DR. I was raised as an Independent, Dispensational, Baptist, Seperatist, Fundamentalist. Such a word as "ecumenism" was always associated with liberalism and apostacy. Of course, when one looks at such groups as the WCC and NCC, one can understand why they say that. As the CRE and ACE are doing, unity is to be built solely upon Truth and nothing less.
What is really interesting in this thread is that you guys think Amy and I are consumed with ecumenism when, in fact, we never really talked about it until it came up in this NG not even among ourselves!
DataRat wrote:
The strength of "protestantism" has always been that -if one denomination went south- another one could be formed. The DataRat attends a church ( the URC ) that had to do just that when a formerly great denomination ( the CRC ) went to feces in a very short period of time.
DataRat wrote:
We also have the opposite example of the PC-USA, which has merged so many times that it has no core beliefs anymore. And ...when you believe nothing... you'll believe ANYTHING !
I wrote:
"True churches, though many, are all one faith, one baptism (Eph. 4:5), so why should we not display this to the world?"
DataRat responded:
Agreed. We ~ought~ to. But, Satan has sown a lot of weeds among the wheat. Humanists and PoMo's within the church are waiting for their chance to re-direct it away from God. This becomes easier as the institutional scale becomes more grand.
That's quite true, DR. So, what do we do? Leave and start a smaller, weaker, more insignificant cloister where no humanist is likely to find it? Why are WE doing the running? While it is quite true that each church has tares among the wheat, " by their fruits you shall know them." When such rotten fruit begins to be produced we excercise biblical church discipline and, if they refuse to repent, we turn them over to Satan by excommunication. Though simple in concept, church discipline is difficult in practice but not impossible! And it is disobedience to allow such "fruit" to remain among us!
This world does NOT belong to Satan and his followers. Remember, Satan's head was CRUSHED at the cross. All we have to do is resist him and he'll flee from us! We are MORE than conquerors through Christ!
Satan and his followers have so much because we've let them have it!
³For all things are yours; Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours; And ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's.²
1 Corinthians 3:21-23, KJV.
Kevin & Amy
Our comments were not "fleeting," but written with complete understanding of what Amy was saying.
The real topic here is not so much about Ecumenical Councils, but eschatology.
Your opinions reflect the post-millennium view that there will be a thousand year earthly reign of the church before the second coming of Christ.
Regarding the 1,000 year reign, I don't quite believe those years are to be taken literally. Throughout Scripture, the number 1,000 signifies "completion." (He owns the cattle on a thousand hills. Does the bovine on hill #1,001 belong to someone else?). In this, we would agree with you.
It is almost incumbent upon you and Amy to strive for revival and establishment of a global church establishment, in order to usher in the thousand-year reign that you expect. This gives you an agenda of sorts, and we think you should be honest with all here, as to your frame of reference, outlook and goals.
All eschatologies produce "agendas." One's expectations usually result in self-fulfilling prophecies. If you don't expect victory, why try? Why "polish brass on a sinking ship" (as Moody and Mcgee suggested)? Amillenialism and Dispensationalism both share a pessimistic view regarding the effect of the Gospel before the Second Coming. History should be viewed in light of blessings and cursings resulting from obedience or disobedience NOT as a result of what I believe is a fatalistic view of redemptive history. This white-washed nihilism draws the Christian's attention away from a primary focus on ethical obedience to a fatalistic acceptance of disobedience as the norm.
We happen to hold the amillennial view, that considers the thousand years to be a figurative description of the church age since the time of Christ's first visitation to His second appearing unto salvation.
We believe we reign with Jesus Christ here and now as members of His body; the church.
We respect you and understand your perspective, but do disagree that ecumenism has the importance that you place upon it.
The earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.²
Isaiah 11:9, KJV.
We're not "striving" for ecumenism. Our duty is to trust and obey God and preach His whole council. Just like you. We simply expect eventual success prior to Christ return, whereas you don't.
Dwell each day for a few months on the implications of Christ's resurrection and ascension. Reread the Old Testament prophecies regarding the Messianic kingdom and have them in your mind as you read the NT again. Ask God to show you what all it was He accomplished. Then we can continue our discussion. You may still disagree with me then, and that'll be okay. Ten years ago, I would be disagreeing with me, too! ;-)
But the resurrection and ascension (the first usually only preached on once a year at Easter, and the latter seldom heard from the pulpit at all) lie at the core of our eschatological perspective.
The DataRat
"DataRat! I consider you a brother, but you're
attacking something I've NEVER defended!"
Wasn't an "attack", Kevin. It was an observation.
You're kind of touchy on this topic. A lot of what
you think was us going after Amy, was not. Most
of it had been general observations on the subject
that you guys supposed were reactions to what
Amy wrote.
While Amy started the topic, most of our comments
were not specific references to what she said.
What the Genevan Rodent stated about the PC-USA
being more of a general commentary on the possible
contingencies involved, rather than a characterization
and refutation of YOUR views.
Working a lot of hours lately, Kevin ?
Your Pal,
The DataRat
The DataRat
"That's quite true, DR. So, what do we do?
Leave and start a smaller, weaker, more
insignificant cloister where no humanist is
likely to find it?"
The smaller the church, the more control we
have ( e.g., keeping out apostates ). Can't
see much difference between a 5,000 member
mega-church, and fifty 100-member churches.
Except that the mega-church is more difficult
to govern and discipline.
As Jim & Ronda pointed out, there is no Biblical
injunction to form large, comprehensive institutions.
Our unity in faith can be ...well... in faith.
THAT said, the Reformed Rodent is much closer
to your position than anyone else here. ( And,
much closer than you realize. Re-read ALL of his
articles in this thread. ) Bro. Rat's main warnings
were directed against Romanist claims for their
councils.
Yeah, The DataRat believes we have to be very,
very cautious about anything ecumenical. Satan
has put a mine field out there. And, the natural
means of unification -even mere agreement- usually
involves COMPROMISE.
Scripture, nevertheless, has a lot to say regarding
unity in truth. The Calvinist Rodent isn't convinced
that councils are necessarily the best way of
accomplishing this ( albeit ACE and Dort seem
successful examples ). Certainly we should be
discussing the issue, and in this Amy has done well
raising the topic.
Our unity in faith can be in faith. We see that
here in the newsgroups where several of us support
each other in the Biblical truths of Reformation
Theology. If we formed an organization, say, the
Usenet Reformed Conference, would we be stronger ?
Then, if we reached-out in inclusiveness to encompass
some of the Baptist-types here, would that promote the
Gospel ? Or, would it dilute the full Gospel with
"accept Jesus" and "come to God" forget-doctrine-you-
need-Jezzus! ...Billy Graham-style... errors ?
We ~could~ concentrate on our similarities with
those guys ( and there ARE many ). But, it would be
difficult to fellowship with them on Monday, and
criticize their dogma ( or, lack thereof ) on Tuesday.
Bro. Rat believes in starting small, and building
from there. He would rather work on what he has
some influence over -than philosophize about
grand schemes. In that, he sees the few of us
doing apologetics here in Usenet as more than a
prototype.
The mutual support the Reformation Christians
show each other on apologetics issues in these
newsgroups being a working model. But, as far
as joining forces with fundies, dispies, and others,
the Tulip Rodent has serious reservations.
Your Friend,
The DataRat
Exterminator
The DataRat wrote:
"That's quite true, DR. So, what do we do?
Leave and start a smaller, weaker, more
insignificant cloister where no humanist is
likely to find it?"
The smaller the church, the more control we
have ( e.g., keeping out apostates ). Can't
see much difference between a 5,000 member
mega-church, and fifty 100-member churches.
Except that the mega-church is more difficult
to govern and discipline.
Oh no DR, you've got it all wrong.
If you want a model to follow, look to a church which teaches as true events that can be proven to have never happened as written by a man who can be proven to have plagiarized the stories.
And last time I checked, was one of the fastest growing churches in the country.
You need as large a congregation as you can manage, and then you fill up the calendar with church ball games (youth and adult) and picnics and youth dances, the Christmas and Easter plays etc. etc., as well as doctrinal mind washing sessions, er, bible study, a couple of times a week.
Ya see what you do is make your members social lives/social support systems as utterly dependent either on the church directly or indirectly by keeping them so busy with church functions that the only people they have much time to know outside work are the other members of the church. That way even such NON-church related events as they might have are with -- other members of the church.
At least to a very great extent.
That accomplishes two things.
Not only do you get numerous opportunities during the week to reinforce the, ah, "correct" understanding of scripture, with their entire lives outside work dependent upon their Church you erect a tremendous emotional barrier to any kind of deconversion.
If they want to change, they have to walk away not just from one routine one day a week (the trip to church), but literally their entire life and all their friends, who of course will be bombarding them with questions and "support" should they express any doubt.
No, DR, you want as big a church as you can manage.
It's a FAR more powerful brainwashing/mind control apparatus. If they barely have time to stop between church functions or events with other church members, why they scarcely have time to think, let alone chat with any of us apostates.
And THAT'S what you need to keep people under control. And control is what it's all about, not truth, n'est ce pas?
*}Exterminator{*
--
****************************************************************
Men think epilepsy divine merely because they do not
understand it. But if they called everything divine
which they do not understand, why, there would be no
end of divine things.
- Hippocrates of Cos
****************************************************************
Jubilee Temple
> GoldRush wrote:
>
> >Frank,
> >
> >We are in complete agreement here.
> >
> >(Kinda nice, isn't it?)
*** Joe *** wrote:
> Wow, it sure is nice to see you two agree on something.
Joe,
For relative newbies, it would appear that GoldRush and I do not agree
on anything. This is NOT true!
Once, GoldRush posted an article on Biblical requirements for
Christians. We agreed 100%.
GoldRush,
It is always nice to agree with you! Sorry I did reply to your post. At
the present time I'm not reading, thus not replying, to your and a
couple others messages. I do not have the time or energy to get back
into a deep heated discussion, I'm working too hard on the Lord's
Temple. With my health as it is, I have to be judicious on how I
delegate my time and effort.
I will always read and answer your email, though.
--
Bro. Frank
Jubilee Temple
http://homepages.infoseek.com/~jubileetemple/index.html
For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God,
our Savior; who desires to have all men to be saved,
and come to full knowledge of the truth. 1 Timothy 2:3,4
Dave Oldridge
<dat...@home.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>"There is no Scripture that we are aware
>of that would support generalized, or global
>ecumenical councils."
>
>
>
>Correct !
>
>And, none saying -as the Romanists maintain-
>that such councils can add traditions to God's
>Word.
Interesting. Has the Rodent decided that Christianity itself is
apostate? Is he about to convert to Judaism? After all, it was an
Ecumenical Council that added the New Testament (officially) to the
Bible.
Dave Oldridge
Dave Oldridge
<dat...@home.com> wrote:
>
>
>"But there are smaller attempts which we can pray will
>grow into one. Examples of such 'ecumenical councils'
>are the Confederation of Reformed Evangelicals..."
The Calvinist Rodent is using a definition from within his own
(heretical) tradition. I was referring to the definition used by the
Church (the real one with a continuous, LIVING succession from Jesus
Christ down to the present time--not just the RCC, but also the
Orthodox and other catholic rites, in or out of present communion with
Rome). The Rat's heresy claims that the Church became apostate at
some point in ancient history but seems to be unclear on whether or
not it was before or after the ratification of the NT canon (which
they accept) and the OT canon which they insist was incorrect.
Dave Oldridge
Dave Oldridge
bobjef...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>You said:
>
>So you accept the work of the 4th Century bishops who assembled and
>declared the canon of the New Testament while rejecting their findings
>with regard to the Old Testament, preferring instead, the work of
>Luther and Calvin? Have I got this part straight?
>
>
>I accept the jewish scriptures along with the NT.
>We have the LXX along with many Jewish voices.
>I believe these are the text jesus, paul peterm and the rest used
Indeed. It is highly probable that what Paul meant by "all scripture"
in 2 Tim 3:16 is precisely the LXX. All of it, not just the parts
that survived Luther's scissors! Fortunatesy for us, his scissors
never reached beyond certain parts of northern Europe!
Dave Oldridge
*** Joe ***
<jte...@san.rr.com> wrote:
>Joe,
>
>For relative newbies, it would appear that GoldRush and I do not agree
>on anything. This is NOT true!
>
>Once, GoldRush posted an article on Biblical requirements for
>Christians. We agreed 100%.
Best wishes with you and your new temple...
OrlandoFlorida
GoldRush wrote in message <37307C68...@mlode.com>...Frank answers Orlando,
Nothing will kill a church quicker than having the laity, by majority
rule, make doctrine.
Frank,
We are in complete agreement here.
(Kinda nice, isn't it?)
OrlandoFlorida
>
>
>"DataRat! I consider you a brother, but you're
>attacking something I've NEVER defended!"
>
>
>
>You're kind of touchy on this topic. A lot of what
>you think was us going after Amy, was not. Most
>of it had been general observations on the subject
>that you guys supposed were reactions to what
>Amy wrote.
>
>While Amy started the topic, most of our comments
>were not specific references to what she said.
>
>What the Genevan Rodent stated about the PC-USA
>being more of a general commentary on the possible
>contingencies involved, rather than a characterization
>and refutation of YOUR views.
>
>Working a lot of hours lately, Kevin ?
>
>
>Your Pal,
>
>The DataRat
>
>
>
>
I agree with DataRat's point that we have been
making general observations on the subject under
consideration. I hope no one thinks that any
comments made were personal in nature. We are
merely discussing a subject among Christian
brethren.
OrlandoFlorida
>But, as far as joining forces with fundies,
>dispies, and others, the Tulip Rodent has
>serious reservations.
DataRat,
I am in basic agreement with most of what you
posted. However, I am a bit puzzled by two terms
that you used: "fundies" and "dispies."
The only others on the newsgroups that I have seen
using the former term - "fundies" - are the God-haters,
atheists, etc. My interpretation is that they mean by that
term "fundamentalist Christian," a Christian who firmly
believes in God, Jesus Christ, and the Bible. Based
on my conception of that term, I would have considered
both you and I to be so-called fundies. What exactly
do you mean when you use that word?
As far as "dispies" are concerned, I have never before
seen that expression used. What does it refer to?
Raul Goulden
The DataRat <dat...@home.com> wrote in message news:3732419D...@home.com...
"The only others on the newsgroups that I
have seen using the former term - 'fundies' -
are the God-haters, atheists, etc."
Think Jim & Ronda may also have used it.
Know they have used "dispie", because
The DataRat got it off of them.
"My interpretation is that they mean by that
term 'fundamentalist Christian,' a Christian
who firmly believes in God, Jesus Christ, and
the Bible."
Yeah, the God-haters employ it in that fashion,
and for them it is one of the worst insults they
can conceive of ( along with that other all-time
PoMo favorite: "bigot" ).
"I would have considered both you and I to be
so-called fundies."
Correct. But, the Genevan Rodent doesn't allow
scoffers to define his lexicon.Fundamentalism, historically, was a reaction to
Modernism. So far, so good. But -in doing so-
it became very anti-intellectual. Even THAT'S
not too bad, but doctrine got thrown into the
trash along with Liberalism.RG-"anti-intellectual" is a term foisted by heretical seminaries etc.I completely reject "anti-intellectualism" as a part of historical fundamentalism.The Fundamentalist segment of the Northern Baptist Convention actuallytride to get the Church to adopt its first creed, "the New Hampshire Confession"but was cut off at the past by Lib's who blocked it saying we have the New Testament what do we need do be like the creedle churches for?
Not merely bad doctrine, but all doctrine. The
true fundies are the ones, Mr. Florida, who say
"I don't need no stinking doctrines, I got me
Jezzus !"RG-I totally reject this as a representation of historical fundamentalism
They end up being followers of Joyce Meyers,
Benny Hinn, or Rodney Howard-Browne. Or,
conversely, lose their faith entirely the first
time it's seriously challenged. Or, go liberal
when they don't see a steady flow of signs
and wonders to feed their emotion-based
beliefs.RG-These folks actually have their own history that goes back to scientology according to my research.(indirectly)
The Reformed Rodent ISN'T a fundamentalist,
he's Reformed. Reformation Christians know
what they believe in, and WHY. They have
doctrines they can explain, and not a shallow
experiential feelings-based religiosity.RG- You can call me Fundamentalist, I think its kind of a fun label to wear because of the way lib's like to use it as a cuss word. I feel that historical fundamentalisms main points were all very basic and anyone I would consider to be "sound" or "orthodox" would subscribe to them. I also consider myself Reformed in doctrine and Presbyterian concerning the govt. of the Church. Although I don't like "Evangelicalism" as a movement I would consider myself an Evangelical. I love the news media use of the word "fundamentalist" which they use now to mean any religious nut, like Islamic bombers etc. Things have gotten so wild libs are even now using "Evangelical" as a swear word, and "evangelicalism" as a movement was suppose to be the "high-minded' people of orthodoxy. I think a historical perspective is needed here, quit letting the news media and whacked out liberal college prof's dictate meaning of terms. I know alot of Fundamentalists and "experiential feelings based religiosity" would not describe a bone in their body. Again I think the term has been butchered by cultural elitists and media etc.
Raul
A Christian
Raul Goulden
Raul Goulden
>Modernism. So far, so good. But -in doing so-
>it became very anti-intellectual. Even THAT'S
>not too bad, but doctrine got thrown into the
>trash along with Liberalism.
>true fundies are the ones, Mr. Florida, who say
>"I don't need no stinking doctrines, I got me
>Jezzus !"
>Benny Hinn, or Rodney Howard-Browne. Or,
>conversely, lose their faith entirely the first
>time it's seriously challenged. Or, go liberal
>when they don't see a steady flow of signs
>and wonders to feed their emotion-based
>beliefs.
RG- Casting John Gresham Machen in this lot????
Two other leaders of the Fund. movement Robert Ketcham was
a Baptist but a Calvinist and founder of GARBC.
Carl McIntire a Calvinist founded the BP
(he did get a little tempermental late in life).
Raul
There have been alot of men who at great expense or at least
inconvenience have held the torch of truth for the Word of God
and the testimony of Jesus Christ. Amen
Raul Goulden
Raul Goulden <der...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7gtmp6$6d1$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net...
Sort of a Biblical "I was country when country wasn't cool."
Raul
The DataRat
"The only others on the newsgroups that I
have seen using the former term - 'fundies' -
are the God-haters, atheists, etc."
Think Jim & Ronda may also have used it.
Know they have used "dispie", because
The DataRat got it off of them.
"My interpretation is that they mean by that
term 'fundamentalist Christian,' a Christian
who firmly believes in God, Jesus Christ, and
the Bible."
Yeah, the God-haters employ it in that fashion,
and for them it is one of the worst insults they
can conceive of ( along with that other all-time
PoMo favorite: "bigot" ).
"I would have considered both you and I to be
so-called fundies."
Correct. But, the Genevan Rodent doesn't allow
scoffers to define his lexicon.
Fundamentalism, historically, was a reaction to
Modernism. So far, so good. But -in doing so-
it became very anti-intellectual. Even THAT'S
not too bad, but doctrine got thrown into the
trash along with Liberalism.
Not merely bad doctrine, but all doctrine. The
true fundies are the ones, Mr. Florida, who say
"I don't need no stinking doctrines, I got me
Jezzus !"
They end up being followers of Joyce Meyers,
Benny Hinn, or Rodney Howard-Browne. Or,
conversely, lose their faith entirely the first
time it's seriously challenged. Or, go liberal
when they don't see a steady flow of signs
and wonders to feed their emotion-based
beliefs.
The Reformed Rodent ISN'T a fundamentalist,
he's Reformed. Reformation Christians know
what they believe in, and WHY. They have
doctrines they can explain, and not a shallow
experiential feelings-based religiosity.
"As far as 'dispies' are concerned, I have never
before seen that expression used. What does it
refer to?"
"Dispies" are dispensationalists. They stand in
contrast to those who subscribe to Covenant
Theology.The most extreme examples of dispies don't
even bother with the OT, because it's irrelevant.
Hyper-dispensationalists start the New Testament
somewhere around Acts 2:4. Afterall, the
four Gospels were about stuff intended for Jews !More mundane dispensationalism incorrectly
maintains that the Jews were saved by adherence
to the Law, and Christians by "accepting Jesus".
It also minimizes the entire OT Law as a rule for
Christian life. Additionally, it tends to view Grace
as having been first announced in the New
Testament, and unavailable in the Old.
The DataRat
.
The DataRat
Raul, not saying that on the day Fundamentalism
was invented that they took it from the lab, and
it was this certain way or another. Or, even that
those who came-up with it intended it to be what
it's become.
Common everyday run-of-the-mill Fundamentalism,
however, has a palpable anti-intellectual streak
and is anti-doctrine.
That this ISN'T universally true, ~you~ are an
example of. Yet, in describing you, Raul, the
Reformed Rodent would never use the term
"fundamentalist" ( except maybe in the context of
something like: "Raul says he's a Fundamentalist" ).
The DataRat
Eric Sneddon
Dave Oldridge wrote:
> Interesting. Has the Rodent decided that Christianity itself is
> apostate? Is he about to convert to Judaism? After all, it was an
> Ecumenical Council that added the New Testament (officially) to the
> Bible.
>
--
Eric
;柵
And Sharkey says: Hey Kemosabe! Long time no see.
He says: Hey sport. You connect the dots. You pick up the pieces.
Sharkey's Night, Laurie Anderson
Eric Sneddon
Dispies, assert that there was really only one dispensation (the New Testament), and that the Old Testament belongs to a group of works most rightly described as, "of interest" in a Cultural Anthropological sense, with a consideration given to those (if any) books of the Old Testament which may have been influenced by the expectation of Jesus Christ, though most Dispies would argue as to who the real Prophets actually were.
Of course a Dispensationalist would also assert that the first two Gospels were indeed a product of the Messianic expectations of the Jews and as such they represent certain principles relevant to the audience to whom they were addressed (the Jews), and the Gospels of Luke and John are heavily influenced by the developing Christology of the first century A.D. (the dawn of Christianity) These assertions are well born out by scripture.
Even the most mundane Dispensationalists maintain the idea that Salvation comes through Christ alone, and Justification is by Faith alone, thus the irrelevancy or misguided properties evident in the Old Testament do not count against the Jews who followed the Mosaic scriptures. It wasn't the physical circumcision that counted toward Abraham's righteousness it was faith.
Dispensationalists do not really stand in contrast to Covenant Theology or its adherents, rather the Dispensationalists consider Covenant Theology to be aberrant in its understanding of scripture (both New and Old Testaments), and the Dispensationalists consider Covenant Theology to be a form of veiled works righteousness. However it should be noted that in spite of the works righteousness of Covenant Theology, the Dispensationalists consider it to still qualify as a form of Christianity (loosely defined to include both heretics and apostates) because of the faith of it's followers.
Thus the Dispensationalists should rightly be referred to as Realists, while Covenant Theology should rightly be referred to as a form of Heterodoxical Syncretism that is almost aberrant enough to qualify as anti-Christ, though not quite aberrant enough to jeopardize the possible salvation of its followers (in most cases).
The DataRat wrote:
"Dispies" are dispensationalists. They stand in
contrast to those who subscribe to Covenant
Theology.The most extreme examples of dispies don't
even bother with the OT, because it's irrelevant.
Hyper-dispensationalists start the New Testament
somewhere around Acts 2:4. Afterall, the
four Gospels were about stuff intended for Jews !More mundane dispensationalism incorrectly
maintains that the Jews were saved by adherence
to the Law, and Christians by "accepting Jesus".
It also minimizes the entire OT Law as a rule for
Christian life. Additionally, it tends to view Grace
as having been first announced in the New
Testament, and unavailable in the Old.
The DataRat
.
--
Eric
;¬]
Jubilee Temple
OrlandoFlorida wrote:
> I'm not sure if Frank was answering me or merely making
> an observation.
Was making a general observation.
Raul Goulden
Kevin & Amy
Raul, this is too cool!! Can you tell me where I can find for a fact that
Bob Ketcham was a Calvinist? This means a LOT to me personally if you could
help me out.
Amy
RG-In the biography by J. Murray Murdoch(a Prof. of mine at C-ville)
it says something to the effect that he had a particular understanding
of scripture that He came to on his own, and that when later he was
exposed to Calvins writings recognized his own beliefs, as stated
by our friend Jean Calvin. I'll try to find the exact quote for ya.
The Biography is called "Portrait of Obedience"
Kevin & Amy
Raul, this is too cool!! Can you tell me where I can find for a fact that Bob Ketcham was a Calvinist? This means a LOT to me personally if you could help me out.
Amy
Raul Goulden
> Raul, this is too cool!! Can you tell me where I can find for a fact that
> Bob Ketcham was a Calvinist? This means a LOT to me personally if you
could
> help me out.
>
> Amy
"When the Calvinist question became and issue in the GARBC,
Ketcham was deeply concerned. Disagreement on this
theological issue had been in the Association from its inception.
"We have had 2 views of election in our fellowship for 43 years,
and we have got along as happy as bugs in a rug." He was
particularly sensitive to the attempt on the part of others to label him.
"For 43 years we have believed what the bible has said to us
about election and we have all been happy. Now why this
sudden confusion? Dr. Good quotes me on what I say in my books
about election and then winds up the paragraph by saying,
"Therefore Ketcham is a Calvinist." I made these statements
not because I am a Calvinist, but because I am a Biblicist.
I believed what I taught years before I ever heard of John Calvin.
I emphatically deny that I have built my theology around what
Calvin or any other man taught. I have built it around the Book.
Now why must I be labeled a Calvinist.?..." R.T.K.
from Portrait of Obedience
RG- Amy what you have here is wonderful. He (Ketcham) is saying
yeah Calvin is right and he got it the same place I did the Bible.
So I think Mr. Ketcham would reject the label but doctrinally on
the issue of election he agrees with brother Calvin. So according
to Dr. Ketcham Calvin is a Biblicist.
Raul
Hope that will help ya Amy, why so intrested in R.T.K.???
Kevin & Amy
Raul
Hope that will help ya Amy, why so intrested in R.T.K.???
Amy
-- "Grace alone, through faith alone, because of Christ alone"
Raul Goulden
Kevin & Amy <kevi...@email.com> wrote in message news:g6YY2.5473$dQ....@news.rdc1.wa.home.com...
GoldRush
From what I understand the graduate school at
BJU is better than 50% Reformed.
Our most recent experience of BJU, was a graduate BJU Pastor
of a local Baptist assembly
who compromised
himself as tolerant of our Calvinism, in order to not exclude us from
attending
his church.
He was so loving, as to tell us that, he had been taught "election"
and even though we believed such a thing, his church would
"accept our error" and have us anyway. (As long as we NEVER
took a drink of alchohol!)
Needless to say, we did not accept his error of Phariseeism, nor
willingness to tolerate doctrines less than what he should have
opposed, if true to his education and background.
His attitude was to lure us (and our money) in, and then ostracize us,
congregationally and socially . . .
which is exactly what happened. We attended many an event, but
no one would dare to approach or speak to the "calvinists".
We were invited
to give our money three times on Sundays, and twice at every other
extra-curricular event, but never befriended by the members.
If 50% of Bob Jones University is Reformed, they are hiding in an
underground society and religion. None of them showed their faces
to us.
B. E. Lantz
There is no evil, no hidden motivation that will not be made perspicuous
to man before his Creator at some time in his life. Furthermore there
are no decisions we have made for which we ultimately will not be held
directly responsible. This is the nature of life and human society.
Such evil remains hidden from the individual until it is demonstrated to
him at the proper time as designated by his Creator. This phenomenon is
cyclical to history and it is inevitable to any group of people. But the
purpose of the presence of Satan’s evil, persecution and harm is to
reveal God’s blessing of completely undeserved grace and thus His true
character to the individual. For "God uses the wrath of man to praise
Him". Whether man deservedly suffers or suffers for righteousness sake,
he does not suffer in vain. His sufferings are intended by his Creator
for blessing - period! Indeed, one of these "hidden things" is the good
news of Christ who both originated such good news and has chosen to
reveal it to mankind. Evil is therefore used to demonstrate the hidden
things of man’s heart vs. the hidden things of God, that aren’t hidden
at all. Man simply chooses to ignore them. And he ignores them until
such time as God removes that option. At which point most men will
accept God’s salvation and considerably fewer will blaspheme the Holy
Spirit at which point they have chosen to separate themselves from their
Creator for the last time. They consciously choose to condemn themselves
to Hell Fire. The nature of their very being demands it - they cannot
live with their thoughts and Hell Fire is the only way to quench them.
But as per John 16.8, the Lord’s promise to ALL the earth, this is
extremely rare. On the one hand most people never come close to that
level of evil, on the other, they aren’t all historical figures (Rev. 20
: 12 refers to BOTH ‘the small and the great").
In the Lord
Brian L.