|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: to whom will God show mercy?
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Please, I would be interested if you could expound on this verse without discounting it or changing it's plain meaning. Don't read it in the light of your doctrine, just read it as it stands and tell me what it means.
You cannot get plainer than what it says.
Not plain enough, evidently. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
The meaning is not that you are doomed if you make the least little mistake. The point is that you can't pick and choose which of God's teachings you are going to obey. You don't get "credit" for keeping nine commandments if you intentionally ignore the tenth.
This is more obvious if you read the statement in context:
quote:
James2.10 For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one [point,] he is guilty of all. 11 For He who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not murder." Now if you do not commit adultery, but you do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak and so do as those who will be judged by the law of liberty. 13 For judgment is without mercy to the one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment. 14 What [does it] profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?
James is not speaking of "one small point." He is speaking about people who refrain from adultery but commt murder.
Beyond that, however, he goes on to say that faith cannot save a person. It makes no sense to read James as teaching that it is impossible to keep the law, and that therefore we must rely on grace through faith. He explicitly denies salvation by faith alone.
Jame's point is that it is very important to keep all the commandments. It is ludicrous that Christians have used these statements to support the idea that salvation is not based on obedience to God. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
[ 26. August 2005, 20:00: Message edited by: Freddy ]
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JimmyT:
[quote][qb]1. Why doesn't God heal us permanently now? Why do we need to limp around in this life until the Final Healing of the next?
He would be happy to, and we don't need to. We continue to limp around because we don't follow the treatment he's prescribed.
quote:
2. If our children show the first signs of rejection of God, why don't we kill them and send them to God for healing?
Because that's not part of the prescription.
quote:
Indeed, if Heaven is where we will be well because there will be no more sickness of any kind, and if we are all sick now because sin has not been eliminated from the universe, why don't we all kill ourselves and wait for our Final Healing?
Because that's not part of the prescription.
quote:
Further, you said there are no rules, only sickness and advice. <snip> I can't see the function or purpose of a protracted period of disease. If there are no rules, why should we force ourselves to put up with it, or why should God force us to put up with it?
What do rules have to do with anything? I didn't say anything about rules one way or the other, whether there are any or whether there aren't, because rules are utterly irrelevant. Eating spoiled meat doesn't make you sick because it's against the rules. Banging your thumb with a hammer doesn't hurt because it's against the rules. Getting fat doesn't make you more likely to die of heart disease or complications of diabetes because there's a rule against it.
If you are spiritually sick, you can get well. You don't have to force yourself to put up with it. God won't force you to put up with it. It's up to you, though, to do your part to get well.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
Josephine: quote:
...Jolly Jape set up her analogy ....
Ahem! "his" as it happens . Poetic justice for me spelling your name wrong, I guess.
The point I was making was that, whilst the word judgement is used, that need not necessarily carry with it connotations of penal retribution.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
Except that JimmyT said that, not me.
Said what? I tried to go along with Jolly Jape on the "secular legal" analogy, raising an objection to it. I didn't assert that it's the right analogy; I played along.
At the same time, I raised an objection to your "disease" analogy and on the most important questions got a recording: "not part of the prescription."
I'm done following different Orthodox analogies and raising objections to them.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JimmyT:
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
Except that JimmyT said that, not me.
Said what?
You referred to Jolly Jape as "her." Jolly Jape responded by telling me that it's "his," as follows:
quote:
Josephine: quote:
...Jolly Jape set up her analogy ....
Ahem! "his" as it happens . Poetic justice for me spelling your name wrong, I guess.
So I was telling Jolly Jape that you called him a her, not me. Not that it's that big a deal. But as it seemed that he thought your points had been made by me, as well, I thought it was worth clearing up.
quote:
At the same time, I raised an objection to your "disease" analogy and on the most important questions got a recording: "not part of the prescription."
Forgive me, but I may have misinterpreted your post, then. When you said, "If God is the Great Physician, why don't we all just kill our children, then kill ourselves?" it didn't seem like an important question to me. In fact, it honestly didn't sound like a question at all. It sounded like a bit of belligerent rhetoric. So I treated it as such.
If I misread your tone, I apologize. If you were asking a question that you wanted an answer for, I'll be happy to do my best to answer it. Just let me know.
[Fixed lousy code. Preview Post is still my friend.]
[ 26. August 2005, 22:32: Message edited by: josephine ]
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
Whoaaaa everybody.
JimmyT, they were simply referring to how you misjudged Jolly Jape to be a "she," and then MR. Jolly Jape accidentally accused Josephine of making this mistake. All clear? (Deep breath now...)
First, Josephine your analogy of medical proportions is something I've never heard be so elaborately laid out and explained. I had to let you know that you have expanded my mind immensely and I will have to chew on that for some time to let it all sink in. Good show.
Everyone else:
Paul challenges the Jews to keep the law in the beginning of Romans. Read 2:17ff, but I'll start with vs. 21b
quote:
You who preach against stealing, do you steal? You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? You who brag about the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? As it is written: 'God's name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.'
I've said it before. We HATE grace. We loathe it. We don't want it to be shown to us (it hurts our pride--we can do it fine), we don't want it to be shown to others (they have to pay for their mistakes). We wanted a law and God gave us one. He gave humans thousands of years to get it--they never did. Finally, he said OKAY ENOUGH I'm sending Grace down. Grace came, worked, and began to change people, just enough for people to realize, "Whoa whoa this is GRACE, people! KILL HIM!" So they nailed Grace to the cross and got rid of him. Rejected it. We can do it on our own.
Thankfully, he rejected our rejection.
Does this compromise our freedom? You want your child to be free, right? You let him/her make choices. But if a kid that can't swim dives into the lake, you go after him right? Even when he screams "No Dad leave me alone I hate you!" you don't say "Oh well he has free choice so I'll let him die." You save his [edited for Purgatory] life because it's your child and you know, hidden somewhere behind their rejection, they want to be saved. Nobody wants to be left to die (or left in hell)--we're just too proud to admit it sometimes.
Thankfully he'll reject our rejection, see through our pride, and dive in after us. ALL of us. (IMHO, of course.)
Regards,
Digory
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
"If God is the Great Physician, why don't we all just kill our children, then kill ourselves?" it didn't seem like an important question to me. In fact, it honestly didn't sound like a question at all. It sounded like a bit of belligerent rhetoric. So I treated it as such.
If I misread your tone, I apologize. If you were asking a question that you wanted an answer for, I'll be happy to do my best to answer it. Just let me know.
First, sorry about not understanding the male/female thing. I guess I wasn't reading that carefully because you blew off my admittedly semi-rhetorical question which I suppose should have been worded as a statement: your analogy breaks down because... I felt comfortable asking the question that way because people ask me all the time for example, "if there is no life after death why don't we just blow our brains out?" I don't take it so much as insulting and belligerent as a challenging rhetorical question expressing what looks like a completely obvious philosophical problem.
So that's what I meant. My apologies again.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JimmyT:
So that's what I meant. My apologies again.
No problem. I appreciate the explanation.
quote:
you blew off my admittedly semi-rhetorical question which I suppose should have been worded as a statement: your analogy breaks down because...
Fair enough. I'm offering the medical model as an analogy -- an extended simile, if you will, and not as a statement of identity.
If I say, "It looks like a hurricane went through here," it wouldn't be difficult to point out all the ways that it doesn't look at all like a hurricane went through. There's no water on the floor, for starters. But if you said that, you would be missing the point. The point of a simile, or an analogy, is to communicate something about one thing by reference to another thing which is like it in some way, not identical to it in every way.
And saying that our relationship with God is like the relationship between a patient and a physician tells you something about the relationship, but not everything about it. So if the analogy breaks down at some point, I'm fine with that. I expect it to.
But I don't think the analogy you used breaks down where you said it does. The question "why don't we send our children to the Great Physician by killing them?" presumes that our children can't meet God right here. The question presumes that our spiritual healing happens primarily after we die.
And I don't think it does. It seems to me that we can, and do, meet God here, now, while we're alive, and that our spiritual healing happens primarily in this life.
So killing ourselves, or our children, would not advance our healing. Rather, that act would interfere with the healing, by removing us from the place where the healing is supposed to take place.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
I still can't quite get, Josephine, why you want to insist that your model is right (or right enough) and the legal model is not just less right, but plain wrong.
I think they are both right as far as they go, and others as well. They all have something of the truth, leaving aside for a moment the question of whether some are more on the mark than others.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
And while you're cogitating on that, josephine, thanks for your reply. Interesting perspective that we are supposed to be healed primarily in this life; sort of a new one on me. I like putting the emphasis on this life, because with Tillich I put it all there in terms of direct experience.
Marcus Borg's observations in Chapter 9, Sin and Salvation: Transforming the Heart in his "Heart of Christianity" seem to work along the same lines that you are suggesting. To brutally sound bite him:
quote:
If to say, "We're all sinners, we're all sinful" is our way of saying, "Something is not right, something is radically wrong, we are lost," I agree.
<snip>
When sin becomes the one-size-fits all designator of the human condition, then forgiveness becomes the one size fits all remedy. And this is the problem. If the issue is blindness, what we need is not forgiveness, but sight. If the issue is bondage, what we need is not forgiveness, but liberation, and so forth.
I can agree that we are "diseased" in some regards and in need of "healing" for those diseases but also "beset by all manner of problems" and in need of solutions. We need to solve our problems and help others solve theirs be it healing or provision of essentials of any kind. Sin perhaps should be seen as shielding ourselves and others from solutions to problems and that sin is erased when the problem is solved. Finding solutions to problems appeals to me more than asking forgiveness for my sins. If I'm doing my best to solve my own problems and running around helping others solve theirs, how many sins can I really be committing if I go about it with an earnest and humble heart?
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Gordon--
Re Josephine:
Maybe because the legal model doesn't allow for much hope?
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
[ 27. August 2005, 05:47: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Maybe because the legal model doesn't allow for much hope?
Well I can see that would be a potential problem, but to quote the old hymn "My hope is built on nothing less, than Jesus' blood and righteousness". That is a most solid ground.
Still, even if my situation were hopeless (though I don't agree that the legal model takes away hope), I would like to know. Tell me I've got incurable cancer, don't hide the fact, and I can at least face the future with clear eyes. Truth wins out over optimism.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JimmyT:
Finding solutions to problems appeals to me more than asking forgiveness for my sins. If I'm doing my best to solve my own problems and running around helping others solve theirs, how many sins can I really be committing if I go about it with an earnest and humble heart?
I like this way of looking at it. In fact I think that this is the whole idea behind true religion.
Jesus came, in my view, to help people find solutions to their problems, and set them back on the right course. The right course is one that leads to useful service and mutual love, and therefore to heavenly happiness.
This "healing" is truly something miraculous, which can only come from God. But our part is to identify what is harmful and avoid it by keeping the commandments of God. This is how to receive God's mercy and be healed.
The idea that this can only happen by faith alone, because actual changes in behavior are impossible is not, in my opinion, a productive way to approach the issue.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Please, I would be interested if you could expound on this verse without discounting it or changing it's plain meaning. Don't read it in the light of your doctrine, just read it as it stands and tell me what it means.
You cannot get plainer than what it says.
Not plain enough, evidently.
The meaning is not that you are doomed if you make the least little mistake. The point is that you can't pick and choose which of God's teachings you are going to obey. You don't get "credit" for keeping nine commandments if you intentionally ignore the tenth.
This is more obvious if you read the statement in context:
quote:
James2.10 For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one [point,] he is guilty of all. 11 For He who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not murder." Now if you do not commit adultery, but you do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak and so do as those who will be judged by the law of liberty. 13 For judgment is without mercy to the one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment. 14 What [does it] profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?
James is not speaking of "one small point." He is speaking about people who refrain from adultery but commt murder.
Beyond that, however, he goes on to say that faith cannot save a person. It makes no sense to read James as teaching that it is impossible to keep the law, and that therefore we must rely on grace through faith. He explicitly denies salvation by faith alone.
Jame's point is that it is very important to keep all the commandments. It is ludicrous that Christians have used these statements to support the idea that salvation is not based on obedience to God.
But what I am saying is that keeping the law will not save you because you would need to be 100% in your law-keeping and that is impossible.
That is why we need grace - simply because the law and its very existence, according to Paul, simply serves as the confirmation that we cannot keep the law sufficiently to merit salvation.
However, you are quite right when you speak about obedience. Salvationist docrtine states explicitly: We believe that continuance in a state of salvation depends upon continued obedient faith in Christ.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by JimmyT:
Finding solutions to problems appeals to me more than asking forgiveness for my sins. If I'm doing my best to solve my own problems and running around helping others solve theirs, how many sins can I really be committing if I go about it with an earnest and humble heart?
I like this way of looking at it. In fact I think that this is the whole idea behind true religion.
Jesus came, in my view, to help people find solutions to their problems, and set them back on the right course. The right course is one that leads to useful service and mutual love, and therefore to heavenly happiness.
This "healing" is truly something miraculous, which can only come from God. But our part is to identify what is harmful and avoid it by keeping the commandments of God. This is how to receive God's mercy and be healed.
The idea that this can only happen by faith alone, because actual changes in behavior are impossible is not, in my opinion, a productive way to approach the issue.
Sorry, you can't get away from the fact that "Christ Jesus came into this world to save sinners" and that "He who knew no sin became sin for us."
Jesus is not a problem solver, he is a sin-bearer.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I still can't quite get, Josephine, why you want to insist that your model is right (or right enough) and the legal model is not just less right, but plain wrong.
I think they are both right as far as they go, and others as well.
I'll grant that the legal model has "something of the truth," as you said. Our Lord himself compared the Kingdom of Heaven to an unjust judge, and there's the parable of the servant who would not forgive his fellows their debts. Both of those use a juridical/legal model to tell us something about what God is like.
But I think the juridical metaphor is dangerous. First of all, it tends to lead us in wrong directions regarding our own behavior. Surely you know people (Paul did) who don't even attempt to overcome their sinful behavior, because they know that they can't quit sinning anyway, and besides, Jesus took the punishment for them, so they're going to heaven anyway. And I am quite certain you also know people who are wracked with guilt, who can't quite believe that God will forgive whatever it was that they did. They know they deserve to be punished for whatever they have done, and they can't turn to God for forgiveness, because he's the one sitting there waiting to punish them. And I'm sure you also know people who are extremely judgmental and legalistic in their approach to the faith. The juridical model pushes us in those directions, and those directions do nothing to help us truly overcome the power of sin in our lives, and to become more like God. In fact, they get in the way. They are detrimental to spiritual growth and development.
Second, I think the juridical model tends to distort our understanding of the nature of God, of who he is. God is the one who truly loves all of humanity; he is gracious and merciful, the fountain of all good things, the giver of life, the light of the world; he knows you better than you know yourself, and he loves you utterly. That is what is true about God. And if you know that, then you can turn to him, trust him, be healed by him.
But if, instead of believing that about God, you believe that he is cruel and vindictive, not caring about you at all, but only about his justice, only about his own dignity, and that he intends to destroy you if you violate the tiniest part of any of the myriad rules and regulations of the Heavenly Code of Justice, what are you going to do then? So he gives you a "get out of jail free" card if you call on his Son, whom he destroyed in your place. So what? How can you love a God like that? How can you let him examine the depths of your heart, to find every bit of brokenness there, and heal it? You've got to protect yourself against a God like that -- which leads back to my first point, I suppose, that a juridical view of our relationship with God makes it impossible, I believe, to make much progress at all in the path of theosis.
Maybe hellfire and brimstone and the Judgment Seat and all of that will cause someone to turn to God in fear, and say the Sinner's Prayer, and "get saved." But it turns many more away from God. And even the ones who get saved out of the fear of damnation -- what progress do they make in holiness? What incentive do they have to do the work to become like God?
None, it seems to me. And that's why I would be very happy to stamp out the juridical model altogether. It may tell us something, but I don't think it tells us much that we can't learn some other, less dangerous, way. I think it destroys faith -- faith, not in the sense of statements that you agree to, but faith in its true sense of radical and absolute trust, it destroys hope, it destroys the ones whom Christ died to save.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
But what I am saying is that keeping the law will not save you because you would need to be 100% in your law-keeping and that is impossible.
God does not work in that kind of legalistic way. You did not read what I wrote above about this:
quote:
It ought to be understood as follows: that anyone who from purpose or from confirmation acts against one commandment, acts against all the rest. The reason is that to act from purpose or from confirmation is to deny altogether that it is a sin. Someone who denies that it is a sin, makes light of acting against all the rest of the commandments.
Everyone knows that a fornicator is not therefore a murderer, a thief, or a false witness, nor even wants to be such. But a person who is an adulterer from purpose and confirmation, makes light of all things relating to religion, and consequently pays no regard to murders, thefts, and false witness, not abstaining from them because they are sins, but for fear of the law or loss of reputation.
The case is similar, if anyone from purpose or confirmation acts against any other commandment of the Decalogue. He does then also offend against the rest, because he does not account anything a sin.
At the same time, the case is the same in the opposite situation, that is, with people who desire to do what is right from the Lord. These, if from the will and understanding, or from purpose and confirmation, abstain from one evil because it is a sin, abstain from all. This is even more true if they abstain from many.
For whenever anyone abstains, from purpose and confirmation, from any evil, because it is a sin, he is kept by the Lord in the purpose of abstaining from the rest. Wherefore if through ignorance, or any predominant lust of the body, he does an evil, it nevertheless is not imputed to him, because he did not intend it, nor confirm it with himself.
It is certainly true, however, that no one can overcome sin by their own power. That's why the Lord is there.
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
However, you are quite right when you speak about obedience. Salvationist docrtine states explicitly: We believe that continuance in a state of salvation depends upon continued obedient faith in Christ.
Well, hang on. If it is impossible to be obedient to Christ then how does this work? Aren't you contradicting yourself? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Sorry, you can't get away from the fact that "Christ Jesus came into this world to save sinners" and that "He who knew no sin became sin for us."
Jesus is not a problem solver, he is a sin-bearer.
He is a sin-bearer in the sense that He took on the sins of the world and overcame them.
He overcame the power of Hell.
He saved sinners by teaching them the truth and by releasing them from the power of the hells.
So He is a problem solver. He is our Redeemer and Savior.
The problem is solved when people obey Jesus, learn to love one another, to abstain from harmful things, and restore peace to the world. This is how God works and what Jesus taught.
He came to reform the world, not to satisfy "divine justice."
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Golly, that makes a great deal of sense, Freddy. You sure you're not Orthodox? ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
You sure you're not Orthodox?
I am always happy about how much Orthodox theology has in common with the New Church. ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
At the same time, the case is the same in the opposite situation, that is, with people who desire to do what is right from the Lord. These, if from the will and understanding, or from purpose and confirmation, abstain from one evil because it is a sin, abstain from all. This is even more true if they abstain from many.
For whenever anyone abstains, from purpose and confirmation, from any evil, because it is a sin, he is kept by the Lord in the purpose of abstaining from the rest. Wherefore if through ignorance, or any predominant lust of the body, he does an evil, it nevertheless is not imputed to him, because he did not intend it, nor confirm it with himself.
So are you saying, Freddy, that salvation comes through my abstaining from one sin, thus proving that any other sin I committ is not intentional? If we add "through purpose and committment" it changes it somehow?
How are we to determine which action is given priority? If one steals but abstains from adultery, is he a) a person who fears his wife's wrath over the law, but cares not about sin or b) a person who remained pure from adultery but unintentionally stole?
It seems to be a very indefenseable, tautological framework.
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
It seems to be a very indefenseable, tautological framework.
Not at all.
There is a big difference between the effort to obey the law and the effort to disregard the law. This effort and intention is what God looks at. Are you not aware that God looks at the heart?
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
You sure you're not Orthodox?
I am always happy about how much Orthodox theology has in common with the New Church.
And with my own New Corinthian Fellowship of Radically Reformed Christians, Panentheist. ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
But Freddy, you slipped just a tad back to the "legal," or at least back to the "rule maker" instead of "advice giver" and "prescription writer:"
quote:
But our part is to identify what is harmful and avoid it by keeping the commandments of God. This is how to receive God's mercy and be healed.
Very Old Age, laddie. You must mean:
quote:
But our part is to recognize, with prayer and meditation, what is harmful and eliminate it by seeking, finding, and taking the advice of God. In taking it, we receive God's mercy and inevitably will be healed. This is a promise.
I can tolerate one slip. But don't let me see another one, young man. Am I clear?
Am I Clear?*
* The correct answer is "Crystal."
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JimmyT:
Am I Clear?*
* The correct answer is "Crystal."
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif) ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
That was the response of Tom Cruise to Jack Nicholson in "A Few Good Men." Joke. Not funny if it has to be explained. Ignore if not funny.
Thank you.
[ 27. August 2005, 22:00: Message edited by: JimmyT ]
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
I got the reference. The question is whether I can handle the truth.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
It seems to be a very indefenseable, tautological framework.
Not at all.
There is a big difference between the effort to obey the law and the effort to disregard the law. This effort and intention is what God looks at. Are you not aware that God looks at the heart?
Okay, so I'll give you that God looks at the heart. Yes, I agree with that. We now see that God looks at our heart and knows our motivations and intentions. He knows if the sin we committed was unintentional. He also knows if the abstention was ill-motivated.
It would follow that a person could continue to slip up over and over, never quite getting it right but always wanting to, and God would see his/her heart. A person could never outwardly break the law or even the spiritual law once and yet be completely ill-motivated, and God would see this too.
So what does it mean to say that we can be saved by the Law -- that salvation depends on our obedience? It can only mean that salvation depends on the condition of our heart, doesn't it?
Perhaps I'm still misunderstanding. It's late. Let me emphasize something I've never said -- much respect for you Freddy. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I still can't quite get, Josephine, why you want to insist that your model is right (or right enough) and the legal model is not just less right, but plain wrong.
I think they are both right as far as they go, and others as well.
I'll grant that the legal model has "something of the truth," as you said. Our Lord himself compared the Kingdom of Heaven to an unjust judge, and there's the parable of the servant who would not forgive his fellows their debts. Both of those use a juridical/legal model to tell us something about what God is like.
Thanks for your answer, Josephine. I always appreciate your replies because they are both thoughtful and clear, and that is helpful for my understanding.
What is that "something of the truth", then? You've shown me two instances in Scripture about where it is found, but is there anything in the juridical/legal model that is taught, that you didn't already believe without it? Would you say, for example, that we really are guilty?
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
It would follow that a person could continue to slip up over and over, never quite getting it right but always wanting to, and God would see his/her heart. A person could never outwardly break the law or even the spiritual law once and yet be completely ill-motivated, and God would see this too.
So what does it mean to say that we can be saved by the Law -- that salvation depends on our obedience? It can only mean that salvation depends on the condition of our heart, doesn't it?
That's right. The loves that exist in heaven are love to the Lord and love to the neighbor. Everyone whose heart is formed to possess those loves is in heaven, and experiences its happiness.
God sees the heart and God, in a sense, judges each individual based on what He sees. But the actual process of judgment is that happiness or unhappiness is inherent in what a person loves, because this determines the quality of life that receives God's love.
So a person can slip up many times and yet have heavenly qualities in their heart, or conversely they can never slip up and have only hellish ones.
But all are nevertheless saved according to the law because the effort to obey God is the essence of what receives His life, and what therefore forms the heart that God sees.
The proof is in the pudding. In this world people can, by circumstances and heredity, struggle unsuccessfully all of their life to obey, and yet fall short. But in the next life the playing field is leveled, and people act according to the true dictates of their heart. Those dictates then lead them to heaven or hell, because those places are where they experience the happiness that is consistent with what they truly love.
The catch is that the dictates of the heart are formed according to a person's life and intentions in this world. People aren't actually judged according to their sins. Rather, it is that people are formed by the nature of their life, and both their sins and good actions go into that equation. One who commits adultery gradually becomes an adulterer. One who rejects adultery, gradually has those tendencies taken away by God.
So God shows mercy to all, but only those who can receive it are able to have the heavenly happiness that He wishes to give to all. Each receives it according to the form of his heart, formed according to his efforts, which are really God's efforts, to obey God's will and not his own.
Thank you for your expression of respect, which I am happy to return.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
You've shown me two instances in Scripture about where it is found, but is there anything in the juridical/legal model that is taught, that you didn't already believe without it? Would you say, for example, that we really are guilty?
Ah, Gordon, if I say, "yes," you'll immediately point out that guilt implies by definition a law that was broken and a judge that declares that it was broken. The whole concept of guilt belongs to the juridical model.
And I think it's important to note that the order of confession, at least in the Orthodox Church, doesn't include the word "guilty" at all. We don't confess our guilt, we confess our sins.
If you're concerned about whether or not you're guilty, then you can start looking for extenuating circumstances and loopholes in the law. If you killed a man, but it was in self-defense, or an unavoidable accident, or because you were a soldier at war, and killed during a battle you had been ordered into, you would not be considered guilty of murder in a court of law. But you have still sinned, because sin isn't lawbreaking. Sin is having done things that are evil in God's sight, things that hurt our neighbors or ourselves, things that offend the holy angels, things that dishonor our calling as Christians. So killing, even in self-defense, even by accident, is a sin. It creates pain and suffering, not just in the victim, but in the one who killed, in everyone who cared for the victim, in everyone who cared for the killer.
If someone you love sins against you, you could say that they are guilty and insist that they be punished. But that response wouldn't do anything for the relationship. What is needed is repentance, forgiveness, and reconciliation. Guilt or innocence doesn't really come into it at all.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Sorry, you can't get away from the fact that "Christ Jesus came into this world to save sinners" and that "He who knew no sin became sin for us."
Jesus is not a problem solver, he is a sin-bearer.
He is a sin-bearer in the sense that He took on the sins of the world and overcame them.
He overcame the power of Hell.
He saved sinners by teaching them the truth and by releasing them from the power of the hells.
So He is a problem solver. He is our Redeemer and Savior.
The problem is solved when people obey Jesus, learn to love one another, to abstain from harmful things, and restore peace to the world. This is how God works and what Jesus taught.
He came to reform the world, not to satisfy "divine justice."
You seem to be saying that sin is morally neutral, a weakness that isn't our fault that God can help us with - a bit like educating us out of bad decisions. It's almost as if you are saying that God is like Professor Higgins coaching Eliza Dolittle into speaking with a better accent so she can 'be' better.
Is sin not an offense to God that we participate in and thus are deserving of his wrath?
Does sin not need forgiveness by grace following repentance?
Is sin not the cause of spiritual death rather tan an inconvenience that God can take away.
We are not blameless in all this. Being sinners puts us at enmity with God. It is certainly not a doctor / patient relationship where the illness is foreign to us. The sin we have in ourselves is our nature. It is not defeated on our behalf by Jesus, it is cleansed from us by his blood, forgiven by his atoning substitutionary sacrifice - all because of God's love which would rather we didn't suffer spiritual death.
And yes, the wrath of God is satisfied by Christ's death. And my sin, making me deserve an eternity in hell, is taken away by repentance and faith.
O perfect redemption, the purchase of blood!
To every believer the promise of God.
The vilest offender who truly believes,
That moment from Jesus a pardon receives.
Contradict that and you contradict the Christian doctrine of atonement believed by all mainstream orthodoxy.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And yes, the wrath of God is satisfied by Christ's death. And my sin, making me deserve an eternity in hell, is taken away by repentance and faith...
Contradict that and you contradict the Christian doctrine of atonement believed by all mainstream orthodoxy.
By "all mainstream orthodoxy" I presume you mean "me and all my friends."
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Is sin not an offense to God that we participate in and thus are deserving of his wrath?
Does sin not need forgiveness by grace following repentance?
Is sin not the cause of spiritual death rather tan an inconvenience that God can take away.
Yes, yes, and yes. Sin is a very bad thing. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
We are not blameless in all this. Being sinners puts us at enmity with God. It is certainly not a doctor / patient relationship where the illness is foreign to us. The sin we have in ourselves is our nature.
It is a doctor/patient relationship. Jesus said:
quote:
“Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. 13“But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice.’ For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.” Matthew 9.12
Jesus came to call sinners to repentance, so that they wouldn't sin any more. The point is to get people to change their ways.
God has no anger. He is love itself. He only wants us to change our ways so that we can be happy.
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It is not defeated on our behalf by Jesus, it is cleansed from us by his blood, forgiven by his atoning substitutionary sacrifice - all because of God's love which would rather we didn't suffer spiritual death.
No, it is defeated on our behalf. this is what the Gospels say. This is also a cleansing. The point is that we are free to obey Him and change our ways, so that the world can be reformed.
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Contradict that and you contradict the Christian doctrine of atonement believed by all mainstream orthodoxy.
I agree that this is how most see the atonement. I don't agree that it is Scriptural or correct.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Contradict that and you contradict the Christian doctrine of atonement believed by all mainstream orthodoxy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree that this is how most see the atonement. I don't agree that it is Scriptural or correct.
So you are saying that mainstream Christian doctrine is neither Scriptural nor correct?
Does that not put your church at variance with Christianity?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And yes, the wrath of God is satisfied by Christ's death. And my sin, making me deserve an eternity in hell, is taken away by repentance and faith...
Contradict that and you contradict the Christian doctrine of atonement believed by all mainstream orthodoxy.
By "all mainstream orthodoxy" I presume you mean "me and all my friends."
--Tom Clune
You presume wrong. I meant exactly what I said.
It is the clear teaching of mainstream Christianity and the verse of the hymn I quoted would be sung very happily by members of all denominations I have come into contact with.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
So you are saying that mainstream Christian doctrine is neither Scriptural nor correct?
Does that not put your church at variance with Christianity?
I would rather be at variance with mainstream Christianity than at variance with the Bible.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Who the hell is this "Mainstream Christianity"?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
And where did tclune and Freddy get the idea that saying potentially stinging things is all okay as long as they append the winking smiley to their posts?
Mudfrog, I've sung that hymn more times than I can count--fortunately not in the church in which i found a home--and it never fails to creep me out. I am very much in disagreement with its sentiment. I don't think Jesus pardons us at the moment when we believe (whatever "belief" is); God's prevenient grace comes before any action on our part.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
I was wondering the same thing. But Mudfrog seemed very sure of himself, so I thought I better just play along.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
And where did tclune and Freddy get the idea that saying potentially stinging things is all okay as long as they append the winking smiley to their posts?
Sorry.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
You've shown me two instances in Scripture about where it is found, but is there anything in the juridical/legal model that is taught, that you didn't already believe without it? Would you say, for example, that we really are guilty?
Ah, Gordon, if I say, "yes," you'll immediately point out that guilt implies by definition a law that was broken and a judge that declares that it was broken. The whole concept of guilt belongs to the juridical model.
I was 100% sure you'd spot that hole and step your way around it as delicately as you have. You didn't disappoint!
But may I point out that you did so only by not answering my question, and then expanding on your previous point.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
I think guilt can be defined as a society-invoked feeling, learned young enough to be effective in gaining submission to a set of rules. Not that I believe it definitely IS that. But it's not necessarily a direct proof that God actually desires us to experience guilt.
-Digory
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
So you are saying that mainstream Christian doctrine is neither Scriptural nor correct?
Does that not put your church at variance with Christianity?
I would rather be at variance with mainstream Christianity than at variance with the Bible.
I'm always worried about a group that believes it alone has the truth about what the Bible says.
Jehovah's Witnesses
Mormons
Christadelphians
Swedengorgians
You all think you are the only way.
You all have a 'prophet' who sets himself up as the expounder of truth lost to every other church.
It's all so predictable.
[ 29. August 2005, 08:02: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
So you are saying that mainstream Christian doctrine is neither Scriptural nor correct?
Does that not put your church at variance with Christianity?
I would rather be at variance with mainstream Christianity than at variance with the Bible.
I'm always worried about a group that believes it alone has the truth about what the Bible says.
Jehovah's Witnesses
Mormons
Christadelphians
Swedengorgians
You all think you are the only way.
You all have a 'prophet' who sets himself up as the expounder of truth lost to every other church.
It's all so predictable.
My apologies for the fat-finger syndrome which made me type Swedengorgians. It should have been, of course, Swedenborgians.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Who the hell is this "Mainstream Christianity"?
I would imagine churches like:
Roman Catholics
Orthodox (of all types)
Anglicans
Methodists
Presbyterians
Salvationists
Baptists
Pentecostals and Charismatics
Holiness churches (eg Church of the Nazarene)
Basically all those who accept the historic creeds and are members of or affiliates to the ecumenical movement (ECC) or the Evangelical Alliances (eg Lausanne)
[ 29. August 2005, 08:09: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
And where did tclune and Freddy get the idea that saying potentially stinging things is all okay as long as they append the winking smiley to their posts?
Mudfrog, I've sung that hymn more times than I can count--fortunately not in the church in which i found a home--and it never fails to creep me out. I am very much in disagreement with its sentiment. I don't think Jesus pardons us at the moment when we believe (whatever "belief" is); God's prevenient grace comes before any action on our part.
Greetings
I appreciate the creeping out thing. There are hymns that jar with me too. It's the language styles used propbably, especially if it's victorian.
As far as the belief that Jesus pardons at the moment we believe, well it's the experience and testimony of an awful lot of people that theirs is an instantaneous conversion experience. But as you so rightly say (and we Wesleyans have to stick together) prevenient grace was at work before tha moment of decision and belief. However, prevenient grace is not saving grace and if one rejects that prevenient grace then there is no automatic salvation. PV leads us to repentance and faith, but it's not guaranteed. If it were, it would be irresistable grace and I don't think we want to go down the road of predestination.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
You all think you are the only way.
You all have a 'prophet' who sets himself up as the expounder of truth lost to every other church.
It's all so predictable.
Every group was started by someone who thought they had the right idea. It is true that virtually all of them don't have it quite right. God will be the judge of that.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
You all think you are the only way.
You all have a 'prophet' who sets himself up as the expounder of truth lost to every other church.
It's all so predictable.
Every group was started by someone who thought they had the right idea. It is true that virtually all of them don't have it quite right. God will be the judge of that.
Hmmmm so let me guess... if it is true that 'virtually all of them don't have it right', which one(s) DO get it right?
It wouldn't be your Swedenborg bloke would it?
As far as the other groups that were started up, you may find that in many cases, the people who started these new groups had no intention of leaving the 'parent group'. The immediate examples that come to mind are John Wesley who to my knowledge never left the Anglican church and William Booth (founder of The Salvation Army) who had a new denomination as the last thing he wanted to found and built his 'new' Army squarely on the foundations of Methodism - we even share their doctrines.
So the test for people who start new groups with new ideas is the strength of their relationship to their original groupings.
Now, I am aware that 16th Century Anglicanism had shall we say, a strained relationship with Rome, but there was never any disagreement over things like the creeds. And for these last many generations Anglicans and RCs have enjoyed close(r) fellowship.
Any group that says that God is now blessing them instead of the older traditions/beliefs/interpretatons of Scripture has a lot to prove.
And most of them (all of them) just do not come up to scratch.
And to come on this forum - as is your right of course - and tell those of us in the catholic, orthodox, reformed and evangelical churches that we have ALL got our Scriptural interpretations wrong over the last 1900 years, whilst Mr Swedenborg uniquely knows the mind of God and the Biblical writers, is a little...
...well shall we say, unwise?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
