Post by Tommi LeinoPost by l***@hotmail.comBrenda, can't you read!!!! What is the clarifier of the
thread title? "Sincere" Christians.
My non-native understanding of the word "sincere" has always
sounded to my ears as being like "trying to be something with
the best individual effort, even with one's weaknesses, without
hiding under the shelter of authoritative opinions unless the
authorities mirror our inner, honest opinion." In this light I'd
call sincerity as being an endless personal "trying" to be
something because who could say that they are perfect Christians
and that all of their opinions match in every regard with the
most authoritative interpretation of Christianity?
Then let me ask you this, is Truth relative?
BTW, "sincere" comes from the Greek which literally means
"without wax." In the market place vendors would mark their
pottery "sincere" to declare that there were no cracks being
hid by wax filler. Their pottery was, in a sense, non-hypocritical.
It was what it was, not what it pretended to be.
But I think you overlook an important aspect of faith -doctrine.
Biblical doctrine are the teaching of scripture. Not all doctrines
where arrived at at once by the Church. Usually they came to
be formulated in response to false teachings. The doctrine of
the Trinity was formulated, for example, when Arian teachings
began to deny the Deity of Christ. The doctrine of sola fide
was the result of catharsis where it was sought to return to the
biblical teaching concerning the means of salvation, to reform
the false teachings that had crept into the church.
Some doctrines are dogmatic. One cannot be a Christian
if they are denied. Again, the doctrine of the Trinity would
be one such example. Other doctrines, though having
significance in the living out of one's salvation, do not dis-
miss the actuality of salvation. If you don't believe in the
Deity of Christ, you simply are not rescued from the
necessitated wrath of God. He has revealed "The Way,
The Truth, and The Life," even making such a definitive
statement absolute by supplying the negative, "No man
comes unto the Father but through Me."
An example of a doctrine that does not divide one from
God in the area of saving faith, would be what one believes
concerning who the events of the end times will play out.
You cannot have it both ways. Either you have absolute
truth backed by an Absolute God, or you have sheer
relativism and Brenda's "in my opinion."
Post by Tommi LeinoPost by l***@hotmail.comIn that you are not a Christian but a pantheist,
Does Christianity reject pantheist understanding of the world?
Absolutely.
Post by Tommi LeinoSome who call themselves as Christians do, but some do not.
Hence my usual clarifier, "Biblical Christian." I remember
hearing on the news just about every night reports about
"Christians" fighting Muslims in Lebanon.
Post by Tommi LeinoThere's a whole bunch of biblical verses that grant validity for
pantheism.
You can make the bible say anything you want it to say by
ignoring the historical context or denying standard principles
of interpretation or by reading your presuppositions into the
text. And if you have a poor grasp of the original languages
and the cultural meaning of words and a biblically harmonized
use of words, you are apt to do just that -make it say what
you wish it to say.
But this is really a naive concept of Truth. In that God is by
definition, Infinite, and that we are personal and created after
His image, He then being the Infinite Personal God, we are
100% dependent upon His revelation. Left to ourselves, He
is completely beyond our comprehension. Therefore, He
must reveal Himself to us and He must do it anthropomor-
phically. That is, He must condescend and speak in a way
that we can understand and NOT become confused.
However, there is something which now hinders all from
knowing God as He truly is -sin. God told Adam in true
propositional form, that when he partook of the fruit of
the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, in that day he
would surely die. Now what is death actually? Now I
more often than not refer to death as alienation. Sin
alienated man from God, from society and from himself.
So sin requires that God now, by His good pleasure and
grace, enlighten us to understand what He has revealed.
The New Testament teaches that it is only if we are
"born from above," and have His pledge, the Holy Spirit,
leading and guiding us in all truth, will we know the
fundamentals of the faith, let alone the deep things of
God.
Post by Tommi LeinoAnd in the end, does pantheist understanding
contradict with the mission of Jesus? After all, it is written
in Bible that Jesus himself has said, "[...] as you did it to
one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me."[1]
Most have not studied the doctrine at any depth, but here is
where some understanding of the doctrine of imputation would
help. Humanity, unlike the angelic realm, is a race. The
Hebraic understanding of this is spoken of the term, "nephesh"
or soul. In Christ's high priestly prayer in John 17, He makes
the petition "that they might be one as We are one." It has
nothing to do with "pan" theism. Pantheism, to begin with,
always ends in the impersonal. I forget the story but I think
it Shiva who marries and they become neuter. Pantheism
philosophically does not allow for Personal absolute.
Post by Tommi LeinoThis saying, however, gives a potentially important distinction
in the exclusion of people that are not "brothers of Jesus", but
at the same time it gives credibility to differing levels of
perfection that gives place for "sincere brothers of Jesus", who
simply try their best,
Oh no. Stop right there. Now you have perverted the biblical
doctrine concerning the acquisition of salvation. It is always and
only by means of faith. Faith is the instrument by which we
appropriate what God has freely chosen to favor us with. There
is no "try." Man is dead to God. Rom 3:10ff in reference to
Ps 14 & 53. There is no issue of merit in the NT gospel.
Post by Tommi Leinobut are not perfect, and hence they may
be called "least of these my brothers." These brothers should
receive full measure of our love because as we love them, we
love Jesus.
You have missed the entire purpose of the giving of the Law to
Israel. It was to press home antithetical thought forms. It revealed
God's nature of exclusivity. Biblical Christianity is NOT, "All roads
lead to Rome." It is, "there is but one name under heaven by which
to be saved." It is the narrow way versus the broadway. "Many
[note!] in that day will say to Me, Lord, Lord. Did we not do this
and
that in your name. But I will say to them, "Depart from Me for I
never knew you."
This is part of the point of Paul's argument in Rom 9-11. The
true brother is not automatically saved because he is a brother.
Rather, he must conform to means of being adopted. Earlier in
Romans, Paul declares that "the righteousness of God is revealed
from faith to faith," and then later decries that those Israelis
who thought that they acquired their peace with God via works
(9:32) failed to do the Lord's work the Lord's way, or "not in
accordance with knowledge." (10:2) And that knowledge was
that the righteousness of God, not man's righteousness, is
what appropriates for man "peace with God through our Lord
Jesus Christ." (5:1)
Biblical Christianity is radically exclusive.
Post by Tommi LeinoAre we not lovers of Jesus? Do we not also see God
behind all Creation? How vain all would be, if the world had no
Meaning.
What is sad is that you don't even know what you seem to
be advocating -pantheism. Pantheism does allow for a
capital "C", Creator. For everything is "god."
I've already explained this to Brenda. Pantheism that
she pretends, has a transcendent God choosing to
condescend into Jesus who dies inorder to condescend
even further into humanity which eventually returns to
dust. This is NOT biblical Christianity.
Post by Tommi LeinoPost by l***@hotmail.comChristianity requires the Word of God as its authority.
What is "Word of God" ? If Word of God is Bible, then we could
quote the Bible itself and say
"For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what
the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they
do not have the law."[2]
Man was originally created perfect. His consciousness was only
referenced to God. Man was not the final arbitrator of Truth. He
was totally dependent upon God. Man is, after all, finite. Whether
he recognizes it or not, there is no other existence in a created
cosmos other than a completely dependent relationship. However,
after man rebelled, his consciousness was severed from its
originally ordained source of Truth, hence the name of the tree.
Man became his own reference point. Yet even though man fell
he was not destroyed. In the giving of the Mosaic Law, God
dignifies man by declaring "Thou shall not commit murder." Man
still has worth. Paul's argument that prior to the giving of the Law,
man was self-ruled by his conscience. All men admit (if they are
honest) that they have true moral guilt. Why? Because they
have a conscience that still reflects something of its original
intent. But conscience is never, now, infallible. For as we later
read in the NT, some have their consciences "seared."
Post by Tommi LeinoIf "Word of God" in this context means accepting the creed then
we can say two things, 1) the creeds are man-made
Well, lets stay on course here. Wherein creeds agree with the
Bible, they are true. Basically, all creeds do is formalize what
the Bible declares. Creeds systematize biblical truth in declarative
form. They are not "man-made" as much as they are a
reconstruction of revealed truth. Again, if you don't have a grasp
as to the nature of epistemological tenets, you will not follow
correct the Christian theory of knowledge. I really don't mean
to come out sounding all high browed, but there are real
substantial arguments against what you are saying.
Post by Tommi Leino2) as such can
be interpreted as not excluding pantheistic understanding of the
world, just like everything can be interpreted, and hence we
could ask, what level of divine authority written word alone
could possess?
Way beyond the scope of this NG. But suffice it to say that
Christ is the Logos. He *is* the revelation of God. He is the
Exegete of God. You will never know God apart from His
explanation of Him. The Bible is not like any other book of
words in existence in that the words are alive. God does not
have chronological existence, right? Word and idea are not
two different things to Him. His word is not one thing one
day and another the next. His words stand outside of time
and therefore exist in Him. "Heaven and earth shall pass
away."
Again, if you comprehend the issues involved with the
incomprehensibility of God, you would understand the
necessity of the written word in light of the fall of man.
Post by Tommi LeinoIf "Word of God" is the result of man speaking or writing under
the influence of "Holy Spirit", then who is to say that our
subject is not similarly influenced and thus speaking the Word
of God?
"God is not the God of confusion, is He?"
Who designed the languages? Who designed our reasonability?
Who designed communication? This is where the high order
of the Tri-Unity of God defies all other concepts. For only in
the Trinitarian God do we have a true basis for communication,
for love, for law, for society. The same God who created man,
is the same God who designed language and communication.
It is the same sovereign God who has revealed Himself and
who providentially keeps that revelation true to His design. The
same person, the Spirit, who inspired the writers is the same
Person who enlightens the readers. Man is NOT the final
arbitrator of truth. "By faith are ye saved." We accept God
at His word. God said it. That settles it. Either you believe
what He has said or you don't.
Post by Tommi LeinoIf "Word of God" means the sayings and instructions of Jesus
then how far is common Christendom from fullfilling these
recommendations? Rather, people seem more concerned with the
Blood of Jesus...
I haven't the time to answer all your points. You set up false
dichotomies, however. Also, we don't place our faith in Christendom,
we place it in Christ. The story being told down through history
is that no matter how idealic the settings, man's depravity still
ruins everything man touches, that includes his appropriation
of the Truth. But as Paul has said, "Does that nullify the Law?"
