- Mar 18, 2014
- 38,116
- 34,054
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Not a matter of us knowing but knowing God is absolute truth and He has revealed Himself.If we knew absolute truth, we'ld be omniscient.
Upvote
0
Not a matter of us knowing but knowing God is absolute truth and He has revealed Himself.If we knew absolute truth, we'ld be omniscient.
Every time YHWH or YeshuaNot a matter of us knowing but knowing God is absolute truth and He has revealed Himself.
As you point out elsewhere there is a historical church which does so. Yet more are "catching on" to the idea.Or place your faith in the infallibly declared infallible magisterium, whereby you can know what is of God for sure and what it means, and without which you cannot.
You mean aggressive as in pointing out there are absolutes?But I think the term actually means someone who holds traditional Protestant theology, and it tends to be used for those who are aggressively polemical towards others.
Where did i say that the Lord was Jesus was being judgmental and compassionate? The fact is that He purposed told her and in detail "Thou hast well said, I have no husband For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly." (John 4:18)@PeaceByJesus What you call liberal tripe, is exactly what our vicar preached just a few months ago, more or less....BTW, my Orthodox priest gave a similar sermon years ago I remember, about the woman at the well (Photini or Svetlana is her name in the EO world). He also tried to emphasize that Jesus was not being judgmental, but compassionate. So I think your interpretation of the passage is needlessly harsh and makes Jesus look cruel..
Yes, the Lord has stern warnings for blasphemy against his work, falsely ascribing it to demonic spirit, and cursing those who add or remove His words, and you seem to see any condemnation of sin in Scripture and those who preach as not being by the Spirit of Christ - unless of course, as here, you can apply them to those you oppose - and essentially impugn the authority of His words by engaging in your specious red-letter hermeneutic.You know, Jesus had stern warnings for blasphemy against his work. All we see ourselves doing is trying not to shut out people who are wanting to come into the Kingdom and to find rest in the Lord. That is consistent with what Jesus preached, that his yoke is easy and his burden light. You would pile burdens upon the weak... that's not Jesus' way.
Are you serious? How can you see my response in invoking Hebrews 12:1,2 as quite judgmental and harsh, in response to what Hendrick posted about a sin-focused person? Just how is telling such a one to look "unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God" (Hebrews 12:2) quite judgmental and harsh? Instead it is compassionate, as I must do the same.This is dubious theology, and quite judgmental and harsh. You are essentially saying that a person struggling over sin is somehow lacking faith, that if only they really believed, somehow they would overcome sin. Yet real Christians do sin, all the time.
Just where would you get that idea on this forum?You mean aggressive as in pointing out there are absolutes?
That seems to be the issue with post modernists. If you point out error by exegesis it is received as mean spirited.
For a Christian (and evidently for one of Jehovah's witnesses) the captain is Jesus. It's worldly people who think of their national leader as captain.No, not caring about who the captain will be on a ship full of souls while belonging to a mind-control lying cult is not a good show, nor is your affirmation of it. You may not vote out of disgust, but you must care.
That is a false dichotomy, as it is not an either or situation. Scripturally, in the secular civil realm rulers are ministers of God (Romans 13:4) "for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well" (1 Peter 2:14) and to such conditional obedience to enjoined.For a Christian (and evidently for one of Jehovah's witnesses) the captain is Jesus. It's worldly people who think of their national leader as captain.
You're asserting that Jesus is a worldly leader in some earthly nation? Or are you just misusing words?That is a false dichotomy, as it is not an either or situation.For a Christian (and evidently for one of Jehovah's witnesses) the captain is Jesus. It's worldly people who think of their national leader as captain.
No: I mean that claiming Christ as your captain (of your soul and kingdom) does not mean you must reject a civil ruler as being a captain in the earthly realm that you exist in and are to evangelize and work to see Him obeyed.You're asserting that Jesus is a worldly leader in some earthly nation? Or are you just misusing words?
I nowhere said or inferred Christians voting for secular leaders meant they saw them as "the captain of their souls" so that quote, if meant to represent my argument, is fallacious, while to avoid warranted challenges to what certainly looked like commendation for not caring about who would lead the secular country, in which true (which they are not) Christians are to be salt and light in, then you should have said something like "they had the good sense to realise that worldly leaders are not "the captain of their souls".I gave Jehovah's witnesses the win for the survey because they had the good sense to realise that worldly leaders are not "the captain of their souls".
There is animosity in mainline churches against conservative and fundamentalist Christians, this being in the form of liberals versus conservatives, since mainliners are overall liberal (including many Catholics) and fundamentalist evangelicals are conservatives.
And the animosity is to be expected, since the latter hold to Scripture as being the wholly inspired and accurate word of God, and thus are the most unified in core beliefs/values among major religious groups, and the most committed, and tend to reflect the attitude of Scripture against rejection of such, and point out the offenses.
However, liberals tend to see themselves as the enlightened elite and oversensitive to reproof, and to respond more by overall demonizing those who oppose them as "haters," "homophobic," "bigots," and such psychological use of language, while blind to their own bias and animosity.
When you really believe in something you should be willing to die for then it should be expected that this is expressed in words and deeds. Yet whether you see it or not, it seems that neither you nor certain other mainliners are too busy getting on with their lives to debate religions that mostly seem (to them) interested in only vilifying them.
Paradoxically, many of these liberals identify with a church that did far more than simply vilify those who ideologically opposed her.
If any mainliners do hold to Scripture being the wholly inspired and accurate word of God then the issue is how does this describe the attitude toward those who reject this authority and its universal moral laws.
Not a matter of us knowing but knowing God is absolute truth and He has revealed Himself.
Are you serious? How can you see my response in invoking Hebrews 12:1,2 as quite judgmental and harsh, in response to what Hendrick posted about a sin-focused person? Just how is telling such a one to look "unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God" (Hebrews 12:2) quite judgmental and harsh? Instead it is compassionate, as I must do the same.
and indeed the sinner (us) needs to look to Him and see ourselves in Him by faith if we are going to overcome
Where did i say that the Lord was Jesus was being judgmental and compassionate? The fact is that He purposed told her and in detail "Thou hast well said, I have no husband For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly." (John 4:18)
But as becomes apparent, telling someone they are guilty of sin as violating the Law and thus are in need of salvation, not just some nice social "validation a human being" is necessarily considered judgmental, uncompassionate, needlessly harsh and makes Jesus look cruel.
But which faith is only real and salvific if it is the kind which effects obedience thru the Spirit, and which includes by obeying the moral law regarding actions and carnal lusts, envy, etc., as well as proactively seeking the benefit of other according to the word of God, most importantly but not always most
Resting in Christ for salvation while laboring to serve him are not mutually contradictory.
It obviously summarises my intent. Your intent is for you to explain. I don't care to do that because it is your intent not mine and you know it while I can only guess at it.if meant to represent my argument
Struggling is one thing. It means one has their compass reading on the correct azimuth seeking the brethren for prayer and support.This is dubious theology, and quite judgmental and harsh. You are essentially saying that a person struggling over sin is somehow lacking faith, that if only they really believed, somehow they would overcome sin. Yet real Christians do sin, all the time.