I have several questions about Fundamentalism.

[JacksBratt]

And here is where you basically say the same as Orthodox people. A person can choose to follow Christ and then choose to leave Him.

Yep, has to be a choice though. Someone trying to be more like Christ but just keeps messing up... they are still saved.
Even if their latest sins have not been confessed.
If you purposefully turn from Him and reject Him and blaspheme the Holy Spirit... You are right, you will be turned away. However, it would be a conscious purposeful event.

 

[sculleywr]

Yep, has to be a choice though. Someone trying to be more like Christ but just keeps messing up... they are still saved.
Even if their latest sins have not been confessed.
If you purposefully turn from Him and reject Him and blaspheme the Holy Spirit... You are right, you will be turned away. However, it would be a conscious purposeful event.

That's the thing, Eternal Security does not allow for this. In Orthodoxy, salvation is about more than just forgiveness. It is about the transformation of man from the corruption of Adam into the perfection of Christ. We become by grace what Christ is by nature.

 

[JacksBratt]

That's the thing, Eternal Security does not allow for this. In Orthodoxy, salvation is about more than just forgiveness. It is about the transformation of man from the corruption of Adam into the perfection of Christ. We become by grace what Christ is by nature.

Of course, but we cannot achieve this. It is impossible to be perfect except through the blood of Christ and by His grace.
We will continue to sin but do not have to continually ask for salvation.

 

[sculleywr]

Of course, but we cannot achieve this. It is impossible to be perfect except through the blood of Christ and by His grace.
We will continue to sin but do not have to continually ask for salvation.

That is what I was saying. It is impossible to become perfect except by Christ. But Christ enables us to do so. Of course, even the greatest of saints will always feel the presence of repentance in his life.

 

[nChrist]

That's the thing, Eternal Security does not allow for this. In Orthodoxy, salvation is about more than just forgiveness. It is about the transformation of man from the corruption of Adam into the perfection of Christ. We become by grace what Christ is by nature.

The EOC is much worse off than I thought if this is what they teach. There are no perfect men in this short life, so there would be no Salvation in the EOC. My first thought was to reply "you must be kidding".

 

[sculleywr]

The EOC is much worse off than I thought if this is what they teach. There are no perfect men in this short life, so there would be no Salvation in the EOC. My first thought was to reply "you must be kidding".

Did I say one must become perfect to be saved? No. please don't read exaggerated extrapolations into what I say. To be honest, "you must be kidding" applies to that extrapolation.

 

[Linet Kihonge]

The early Church was a church caught between two highly established/dominant practices such that it was a miracle they even came out alive. The early was at the heart of "volcanic activities" where the practices of the particular culture were either the only way or no way at all. I do send my condolences to all those who lost to physical battles but the LORD glorified them in his own capacities that they he remained with their souls. Our early martyrs knew hell was always knocking at the door if it wasn't the Jews questioning this Messiah they kept talking about then it was the pagans who mocked them for believing in something they never saw.

If I were to be asked CC is the Christianity at the heart of Judaism and Paganism so it becomes difficult to defend why you do what you do, esp. if Scripture is the ultimate source of inspiration. The CC meant well when it converted some of the Judaism and Pagan practices into Christian-like or they "Christianized" prevalent traditions. However, the battle is over and there's no need to cling on to anything that traces to Paganism/Judaism because He came so they you may be free and free in deed!!!

 

[BobRyan]

There are also so many Christians out there that don't take the bible seriously and, keep throwing Matthew 7:1 in people's faces. Especially the faces of Fundamentalists. Yet, they use it so out of context that they only end up looking like ignorant 3 year old's. Matthew 7:1 does NOT tell Christians to not judge sin. In fact? For telling us to not judge sin? You're judging us. It warns us against sinning in HYPOCRISY. It tells us to Judge others RIGHTEOUSLY. And to not Condemn other people. Simply put? Jesus did not agree with Hypocrites. To him, you could not love God and call yourself a follower of God if you lived your life in sin and did not follow God's word like it says in Matthew 7:21. There also, are several places in the bible where it commands us to Judge for sin.

There are so many Christians out there, that don't even bother to study and learn the bible and only listen to like one or two verses. Or, they'll pick the parts of the bible that they like and call the rest of it "useless garbage" and "Just a story".

It's NOT just garbage! It's the word of God! Am I the only one that's slightly offended by these comments?

Then there are the people whom I find really offensive. The hypocritical Christians who claim that ALL Fundamentalist Christians are against helping the poor, and are for power and greed.

Probably because of Donald Trump and what's going on with him and what he protrays list Christianity to be. Donald Trump is NOT a Fundamentalist Christian.

1. Trump was asked if he had ever confessed a single sin to God - and he said no - because he does not get God involved in such things. I don't know of even one fundamentalist Christian that says such a thing. But I am sure there are atheists that would say it.

2. If you want to find fundamentalists - don't look for evolutionists to point out the way - unless of course you are asking them about their "opposition" within Christianity.

3. There are certainly some Fundamentalists on the GT section of the board - but there are a whole lot of them on the "Sabbath and the LAW" section of the board.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
Until you read Luke 24:27

27 And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.

Let's rewrite that the way you read it:

What about not rewriting anything?
What about not merely 'quote you' as your proof?
What about simply accepting the text?

And beginning at Moses and the Prophets, He said "you should never use anything as authority except for the Scriptures"

Nice rabbit trail. The point of Luke 24:27 is that the term "All of scriptures" is impossible in the false doctrine you use because you just said that the Bible did not exist before the Apostles - as if the doctrine of the Bible was not known in Luke 24:27 or the concept of "all of scriptures" known at that time.

This is incredibly obvious - we all can see it.

Were we simply "not supposed to notice" these details that your speculation does not survive?

Luke 24;27 proves that the OT was fully known and canonized long before the first catholic walked the earth. Just as Josephus also states as early as the first century the OT had been canonized for over 400 years.

The New Testament didn't exist when Christ spoke to these people, did it? Is that not part of the Bible now? Should I rip it out of my Bible?

I did not say the NT had been fully canonized at the time that Luke 24:27 was spoken.... you are trying out a "rabbit trail" diversion.

I also do not claim that the Bible has some books in it written after the teaching of Christ in Luke 24:27, in which there is even one iota of dispute over the text as being in the Bible or not - between Catholics and Protestants.

Here are things it does not do:

1. Tell us which canon Christ used

According to real-life historians there was only at the time of Christ - that had been locked in stone - for over 400 years - and that is the hebrew Bible that was kept in the temple for that period of time.

And you have no other option for the Luke 24;27 statement that is fully canonized - frozen - for over 400 years.

2. Tell us that Scripture is the only thing we should use

The sola scriptura argument of Mark 7:6-13 and Acts 17:11 is not that the OT is the only text that can be read - it is that known scripture is always the defacto standard - test - rule for all other claims that follow it.


What it says is that Christ used Scripture that existed at the time, of which there was only 1 known canon ... kept in the temple and accepted beyond question by all the Jews -- as the standard. Even Josephus admits to this.

 

[sculleywr]

What about not rewriting anything?
What about not merely 'quote you' as your proof?
What about simply accepting the text?



Nice rabbit trail. The point of Luke 24:27 is that the term "All of scriptures" is impossible in the false doctrine you use because you just said that the Bible did not exist before the Apostles - as if the doctrine of the Bible was not known in Luke 24:27 or the concept of "all of scriptures" known at that time.

This is incredibly obvious - we all can see it.

Were we simply "not supposed to notice" these details that your speculation does not survive?

Luke 24;27 proves that the OT was fully known and canonized long before the first catholic walked the earth. Just as Josephus also states as early as the first century the OT had been canonized for over 400 years.





I did not say the NT had been fully canonized at the time that Luke 24:27 was spoken.... you are trying out a "rabbit trail" diversion.

I also do not claim that the Bible has some books in it written after the teaching of Christ in Luke 24:27, in which there is even one iota of dispute over the text as being in the Bible or not - between Catholics and Protestants.



According to real-life historians there was only at the time of Christ - that had been locked in stone - for over 400 years - and that is the hebrew Bible that was kept in the temple for that period of time.

And you have no other option for the Luke 24;27 statement that is fully canonized - frozen - for over 400 years.



The sola scriptura argument of Mark 7:6-13 and Acts 17:11 is not that the OT is the only text that can be read - it is that known scripture is always the defacto standard - test - rule for all other claims that follow it.


What it says is that Christ used Scripture that existed at the time, of which there was only 1 known canon ... kept in the temple and accepted beyond question by all the Jews -- as the standard. Even Josephus admits to this.

You read it differently than it read. He did not say "These are all the scriptures that can ever exist. He did not say which Scriptures were in existence, and since we know that it would take, in reality, longer than it would take to walk from Jerusalem to Emmaus to go through the entirety of even the truncated OT you have, much less the Septuagint we know the Apostles and First Century Jews used, and it was impossible for him to have carried the entire collection of those scrolls whilst walking unless He created a Mary Poppins bag to carry them in, your argument for Sola Scriptura falls flat, ESPECIALLY if Christ said not to add to what He used, because that essentially means that the gospel of Mark is an addition to what Christ said is already finished.

Those Scriptures don't preserve or speak of Sola Scriptura. Either that, or the Apostles were the worst teachers in the world. Why is it that it took 1500 years for people to discover the Truth if it was so obvious?

It is much more likely that Sola Scriptura is an innovation.

 

[BobRyan]

You read it differently than it read. He did not say "These are all the scriptures that can ever exist.

And neither did I.

The point remains.

 

[Radrook]

Once Darwin declared that we came from apes and that all apes can be traced to a common ancestor, and once that idea began to be taught to kids in school, and once it was finally adopted as irrefutable fact, then anyone insisting that the Genesis creation account is a literal account of our history was tagged an ignorant extremist.

Once that was supposedly proven bogus, then the rest of the Genesis account became fair game and much archeological activity was dedicated to prove that it's claims are historically bogus. The existences of the Hittites, Jericho, Sodom and Gomorrah, were questioned and pronounced as myths. When archeological evidence proved such assumptions wrong then new biblical claims were questioned. In short, it became popular to say that the Bible writers are liars.

 

[sculleywr]

And neither did I.

The point remains.

You acted like that's what he said. You acted like he said all the Truth that exists is in Scripture. The problem is that this is frankly impossible if we are to accept John as inspired Scripture, since John said that everything Christ did couldn't be contained in all the books in the world. So if everything Christ did and said is Truth, and it can't be contained in written format, then we are at an impasse where we must assume that there is Truth that wasn't recorded in written form, or else we must reject Scripture's declaration of that fact.

So when Scripture commands both written and oral Tradition, I choose to accept what it says instead of rationalizing around it. IF God is truly loving, then He will make it possible for me to obey His command in II Thessalonians 2:15, meaning there is something of equal authority as Scripture.

 

[Linet Kihonge]

This is what is being said, even if all that is in Scripture isn't all there is today, let it be at least consistent with the scriptures. There's nothing new that was ever introduced later on that contradicted the OT apart from the observance of the NC standards. For instance, the baptism of infants, was first introduced way after the Apostles rested and no one in the past baptized babies!

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

So when Scripture commands both written and oral Tradition, I choose to accept what it says instead of rationalizing around it. IF God is truly loving, then He will make it possible for me to obey His command in II Thessalonians 2:15, meaning there is something of equal authority as Scripture.

It doesn't, and no, there isn't.

The proof is the oral tradition CONTRADICTS SCRIPTURE, instead of being what Jesus says and does, instead of being ALIVE IN CHRIST,
instead of confirming and being in harmony with Scripture,
IT CONTRADICTS SCRIPTURE --
and
you have approved it by saying
well, THEY say they don't contradict Scripture !!!!!!!???????

Instead of just reading Scripture to see that they contradict Scripture!!!!!!!

LIke listening to those who sit around thinking , then say,
WE have decided , absolutely, because we say so,
HORSES HAVE 24 teeth...... (instead of COUNTING THE TEETH!!!!!!)

i.e. oral tradition that CONTRADICTS SCRIPTURE is empty vanity.

 

[sculleywr]

This is what is being said, even if all that is in Scripture isn't all there is today, let it be at least consistent with the scriptures. There's nothing new that was ever introduced later on that contradicted the OT apart from the observance of the NC standards. For instance, the baptism of infants, was first introduced way after the Apostles rested and no one in the past baptized babies!

Whole households were baptized. The baptism of all ages was also spoken of in the Didache, which is trhe first century.

Moreover, since Baptism was to Christianity what circumcision was to Judaism, as stated by Paul, it is logical to connect the same rules that governed Baptism to those that governed Circumcision, namely that people of age were not circumcised until they knew the Jewish Faith and had accepted it, but infants were to be Circumcised as well. Circumcision was not predecated on belief in all cases.

So if we're talking about something that contradicts Scripture, saying that Baptism replaces Circumcision but doesn't apply in the same way as circumcision is not a consistent application of the Scripture. We know infants were Circumcised, so why wouldn't infants be Baptized if Baptism was the Christian circumcision? Without the Scriptures forbidding infant Baptism, and with them correlating Baptism with another action infants were involved in, logic dictates the goose and gander rule.

 

[Linet Kihonge]

1 Peter 3 [For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit. After being made alive,d he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits— to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God.e It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at God’s right hand—with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.]

Now before any church baptizes any more infants and lead masses into the great fall let them understand they are just pouring water on babies for nothin'. How can an infant pledge a clear conscience towards God? How can an infant know the difference between sin and righteousness? How can an infant be cleansed from anything? The stain of Adam was, "Back-breaking pain when having a child, working yourself off to earn bread and going back to the dust man came from," and you still baptize them and we still go to labor, we still work, and we still say, from ashes to ashes and dust to dust. So what stain are you referring to? If it's eternal redemption, the mind of an infant is not with any sin to lead it to damnation! But the weakness of flesh, is inevitable regardless of the time a man is baptized. The sooner the man is able to tell the difference between good and evil, the sooner he needs the SEAL OF THE COVENANT, the Holy GHOST! :/

 

[SkyWriting]

Now before any church baptizes any more infants and lead masses into the great fall let them understand they are just pouring water on babies for nothin'. How can an infant pledge a clear conscience towards God? How can an infant know the difference between sin and righteousness? How can an infant be cleansed from anything?

It no different than being married in a Church. Your spouse might die as you leave the building. Or he may continue his bedding the bridesmaid. Of what value is a wedding?

 

[Linet Kihonge]

... Unless it's from the heart!!!

 

[BobRyan]

Once Darwin declared that we came from apes and that all apes can be traced to a common ancestor, and once that idea began to be taught to kids in school, and once it was finally adopted as irrefutable fact, then anyone insisting that the Genesis creation account is a literal account of our history was tagged an ignorant extremist.

Once that was supposedly proven bogus, then the rest of the Genesis account became fair game and much archeological activity was dedicated to prove that it's claims are historically bogus. The existences of the Hittites, Jericho, Sodom and Gomorrah, were questioned and pronounced as myths. When archeological evidence proved such assumptions wrong then new biblical claims were questioned. In short, it became popular to say that the Bible writers are liars.

This is a good point.

The "lying Bible" - the "lying Word of God" argument starts in Genesis 3. So also does the false religion of evolutionism and the idea of evolving to a higher form of existence.