• Amused
  • Angry
  • Annoyed
  • Awesome
  • Bemused
  • Cool
  • Crazy
  • Crying
  • Depressed
  • Down
  • Embarrassed
  • Enraged
  • Friendly
  • Geeky
  • Grumpy
  • Happy
  • Hungry
  • Innocent
  • Meh
  • Piratey
  • Poorly
  • Sad
  • Secret
  • Shy
  • Sneaky
  • Tired
  • Page 22 of 22 FirstFirst ... 12202122
    Results 211 to 213 of 213

    World Religion & Speculative Theology - Thread: Salvation - Part 2

    1. #211
      Josiah's Avatar
      Josiah is offline Bronze Member
      Supporting Member
      Married
      Mood:
      Happy
       
      Join Date
      Jun 2015
      Posts
      6,618
      Country
      United States
      CH Cash
      116,392
      CH Challenge
      270
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (0 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      67,770
      Level
      64
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      4.12%
      Rep Power
      895
      Quote Originally Posted by Josiah View Post
      An open letter to MennoSota...


      Friend,


      1. First READ posts 118, 125, 135, 143. Read those BEFORE you continue.


      2. You (perhaps accidentally) have raised an obvious and solid point: MUCH of Christian theology is derived from Scripture but not specifically stated (The Trinity, the Two Natures of Christ, etc.). ALL theological positions and traditions acknowledge that (including Lutherans and Calvinists who embrace Sola Scriptura). Your premise that the words of the Bible must exactly STATE such is actually not in keeping with Sola Scriptura or 2000 years of Christianity and (obviously) you yourself don't insist upon that for yourself (as you've made so obvious). But your point is valid: Traditionally, Christians HAVE embraced (even dogmatically) positions not exactly so stated in the Bible. The problem I see is your double-standard - you can "derive" but others can't, and you permit yourself to embrace tradition (you perfectly echo Anabaptist tradition) but reject ecumenical, historic, orthodox tradition: YOU think very highly of what YOU now think/feel/observe but deny others looking to what ALL Christians, together, for 1500 years, going back to the Apostles, did/do.


      3. I've NEVER understood how one an be a Reformed Baptist, lol. It's like saying a Dog-Cat. They are about as directly opposite of each other as is possible. Anyway..... IF (big word there)..... IF your position were: "I think there is insufficient support for the idea that Baptism is a means of grace" AND STOPPED THERE.... you'd be in the company of some of the later-day Calvinists (Calvin himself rejected that, he affirmed Baptism as a means of grace) but of course, Calvinism was completely reinvented after Calvin and that included a non-dogmatic (sic) questioning (even at times denial) of Baptism as a means of grace. BUT (and here's the point) they passionately rejected the dogmas YOU are so obsessed with: Anti-Paedobaptism, Credobaptism... and your equal obsession with the rubric that we can't do anything unless it's illustrated in the Bible, if a group is not INCLUDED they are thus dogmatically EXCLUDED, and that baptism is invalid unless every body part is covered by an abundance of water. In other words, they rejected Anabaptism. They also rejected the synergism of the Anabaptist - the whole point that God CANNOT save a baby. Those Calvinist repudiated all the Anabaptist traditions you have so perfectly, verbatim been echoing for as long as I've known you - these later day Calvinists REJECTED and REPUDIATED every one of those inventions/traditions - the ones you are defending and parroting. ALL they did was suggest (nothing dogmatic) that Baptism AS A MEANS OF GRACE has insufficient support. I disagree with them.... but IMO it's not an unreasonable position (and they are careful to NOT say it dogmatically). They SUPPORT infant baptism (and by sprikling/pouring).... they REJECT the synergism you have been promoting.... they REJECT the silly rubrics you've been promoting (but never following).... they just won't say that God can or does use baptism as a tool to grant His free gift of faith (which is NEVER requested, NEVER sought, NEVER remotely understood until AFTER it is given). I don't agree with this reinvention of Calvins' view (Calvin himself was pretty orthodox on this) BUT I get the point: Yeah, whether we are discussing the Trinity or the Two Natures of Christ or ANY historic, orthodox, ecumenical belief - there CAN be (and probably will be) some who say "I think there is insufficient support to hold that dogmatically." Luther did that with the views of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. BUT that's NOT your position. You are not a new-Calvinist on this, you are perfectly, verbatim, echoing the traditions of those Anabaptists that those very same Calvinists repudiated as much as Lutherans, Anglicans, Catholics and others did. IF you held to the new Calvinist position - I could respectfully disagree. But your echoed Anabaptist stuff seems beneigh you and just contradicts all the monergism and sound theology you will proclaim when you get off this Anabaptist stuff you echo.


      - Josiah




      .

      Some notes:



      1. I have not entered into a discussion with MennoSota or anyone on whether baptism of infants or old folks can be used by God for His purposes. I have (rarely) shared a video or quote expressing the orthodox, historic view (not noting if I agree or not) but this has not been my issue. MennoSota (and orginally some others - all of them "left" MennoSota long ago) has driven these points of Anti-Paedobaptism, Credobaptism, Immersion Baptism and the mandate that we can't do what is not illustrated as done in the NT.


      2. I hesitate to go through the 4,000 posts of MennoSota (many of which are a promoting of the Anabaptist tradition dogmas on Baptism), that would be a mighty task! But I think that any here who have been paying attention AT ALL to his many, many posts on this HAVE been powerfully promoting the Anabaptists dogmas of Anti-Paedobaptism (he is quite critical of infant baptism, for example) and of Credobaptism (he is very insistent that if faith doesn't previously exist, baptism is not to be given) and of Immersion. I find his denial that he has been promoting and conveying these views amazing - but if necessary, I'm sure any can find more than sufficient posts from him, often extremely radical ones.


      3. I want to discuss HIS dogma.... the Anabaptist denominational tradition he is parroting, echoing (I admit, perfectly), what he is so often powerfully promoting. And it is HE (not me!) who insists on the norming: all must IGNORE all denominational tradition (a point he has made over and over and over again) and that the dogma must be stated in the words of Scripture. I have stated often that I don't really buy such a radical process but since HE so powerfully insists, I'll submit for this discussion of his points. So, I think my questions are not only apt and reasonable but mandated by HIS insistence: Where are these things he dogmatically proclaimed stated in Scripture? And we must IGNORE the tradition of Anabaptists and their arguments and apologetics. I'm NOT imposing any views on him - the Anti-Paedobaptism, Credobaptism, Immersion Baptism and the prohibition of anything not illustrated as done in the Bible are HIS dogmas NOT MINE! And the rules that the words of Scripture must state them and we must ignore all denominational tradition are HIS demands, NOT MINE.


      4. I have tried - repeatedly, in many threads over many months - to break through this, including several times in this thread - including in the post quoted above. Such efforts have ALWAYS been completely ignored.... and at times... well, people saw those posts. I have spent much time and effort to try to help and to communicate..... nearly always totally ignored and ridiculed.


      5. I don't object to strong opinions - I actually rejoice in them, given our modern relativistic world. And I welcome people sharing their views. But at times, we need to HELP each other evaluate those views.... it is good to seek mutual understanding .... and sometimes it is helpful when our apologetics are flawed and especially when we contradict them or show we ourselves don't accept them. I realize.... well..... some don't care if what they dogmaticly proclaim is true or not, they are just here to shout and pronounce their denomination's spin (right or wrong). I understand that reality.... but at times, it can be hard to respect - especially when they seem to not accept their own dogmas or follow their own demands.




      - Josiah




      .
      Last edited by Josiah; Today at 08:43 AM.
      We are justified by works - just not our own.

    2. #212
      MennoSota is online now Expert Member
      Mood:
      ----
       
      Join Date
      Sep 2017
      Posts
      3,953
      CH Cash
      16,647
      CH Challenge
      232
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (0 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      16,121
      Level
      36
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      42.51%
      Rep Power
      414
      Sola Scriptura

    3. #213
      MoreCoffee's Avatar
      MoreCoffee is offline Gold Member
      Girding loins for the battle.
       
      Mood:
      Awesome
       
      Join Date
      Jul 2015
      Posts
      16,050
      CH Cash
      19,942
      CH Challenge
      695
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (0 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      43,337
      Level
      54
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      11.7%
      Rep Power
      674
      (Greek soteria; Hebrew yeshu'ah).
      Salvation has in the Scriptural language the general meaning of liberation from difficult circumstances or from other evils, and of a transition into a state of freedom and security (1 Samuel 11:13; 14:45; 2 Samuel 23:10; 2 Kings 13:17). At times it expresses God's help against Israel's enemies, at other times, the Divine blessing bestowed on the produce of the soil (Isaiah 45:8). As sin is the greatest evil, being the root and source of all evil, Holy Scripture uses the word "salvation" mainly in the sense of liberation of the human race or of an individual person from sin and its consequences. Salvation is used both of humanity and of individuals.

      Salvation applied to humanity. There's no need not dwell upon the possibility of the salvation of mankind or upon its appropriateness. Nor need to tell you that after God had freely determined to save the humanity, He might have done so by pardoning man's sins without having recourse to the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity. Still, the Incarnation of the Word was the most fitting means for the salvation of human kind, and was even necessary, in the case where God claims full satisfaction for the offence shown to him by sin. Though the office of Saviour is really one, it is virtually multiple: there must be an atonement for sin and its just punishment, an establishment of the truth so as to overcome human ignorance and error, a perennial source of spiritual strength aiding man in his struggle against darkness and corruption of human nature. There can be no doubt that Jesus Christ really fulfilled these three functions, that He therefore really saved mankind from sin and its consequences. As teacher He established the reign of truth; as king He supplied strength to His subjects; as priest He stood between heaven and earth, reconciling sinful man with his offended God.

      Psalms 91:1-8 He who dwells in the shelter of the Most High, who abides in the shadow of the Almighty, 2 will say to the LORD, "My refuge and my fortress; my God, in whom I trust." 3 For he will deliver you from the snare of the fowler and from the deadly pestilence; 4 he will cover you with his pinions, and under his wings you will find refuge; his faithfulness is a shield and buckler. 5 You will not fear the terror of the night, nor the arrow that flies by day, 6 nor the pestilence that stalks in darkness, nor the destruction that wastes at noonday. 7 A thousand may fall at your side, ten thousand at your right hand; but it will not come near you. 8 You will only look with your eyes and see the recompense of the wicked.
      Pope Gregory I was well known for his alms to the poor, and he gave quite generously of the riches donated to the Church by the wealthy people of Rome. Everything from money to land was given to the poor in some fashion. He made clear to his subordinates that their duty was to relieve the distress faced by the poor.

      He ordered his clergy to go out into the streets to find and care for the poor in person.

    Bookmarks

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •