10andBOUNCE said:
dermdoc said:
10andBOUNCE said:
dermdoc said:
10andBOUNCE said:
dermdoc said:
10andBOUNCE said:
dermdoc said:
10andBOUNCE said:
Zobel said:
Quote:
From the very beginning of time, God has shown a common thread of how he has a chosen race, an elect peoples he has saved.
In the Old Testament, this was the Israelites. Not the Egyptians, whom he stuck down many of the firstborn babies (10th Plague). Not the other nations - the Hittites, Girga****es, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites. God destroyed them all, for the sake of his chosen peoples.
wrong. God revealed Himself to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. And then He allowed Joseph to go to Israel so that many people could be saved - which included Egyptians. The sons of Israel intermarried with the Egyptians - including Joseph.
When the sons of Israel went out of Egypt, a mixed multitude went with them (Exodus 12:38). There were people of all kinds of genetic descent in Israel, in the Exodus. What made you an Israelite was not who your father was, but whether or not you participated in the Passover (Exodus 12:43, 47). And, if you participated in the Passover, you had Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as your father. This is the same as when non-gentile Christians come to be faithful to the Messiah - those same mixed multitude became their fathers. (1 Corinthians 10:1)
God revealed himself not only to Israel, but also the Egyptians! (Exodus 7:5, 7:17, 8:10, 8:22, 9:14,14:4, 18) and to the whole world (Exodus 15:15, Ezekiel 36:23, 37:28, 38:23, and other places).
The distinction made is - God's chosen people are those faithful to Him, and to the people who possess the promises. That is why Edom was cut off. That is why the northern tribes of Israel were cut off. Not because of blood, because of faithlessness (John 15:6).
Quote:
How does one reconcile this in church history?
It is your understanding that needs reconciliation.
I've gathered that. I'm the scourge of Protestantism and Evil.
You still have to answer to what happened to all those souls who walked the earth prior to Christ mediating for us? Did all the heathen nations have a fair shake at following God's law? Were they unfairly sent to hell? Or will there be these heathens that didn't follow God but are somehow in Heaven now? Just because it's in the old testament doesn't mean you dismiss it. How does that all get reconciled?
I honestly do not know what was their eternal fate was prior to Christ. Do you?
And one more time, how do you reconcile Scripture that clearly states God desires to save all mankind with double predestination? I have never had a Reformed person adequately answer that to my understanding. I am truly curious.
I am not throwing stones at you. You have been very gracious to me.
Not going to be able to explain it better than Sproul or Piper can. And some of it is beyond the explanation that human minds and their finite abilities can handle.
I have read their thoughts on this and they sure seem to tap dance around the obvious to me contradictions of Scripture that clearly state God desires all to be saved And I have stated, I have never had a Reformed person explain it to me to my satisfaction. Maybe it is me.
I think every belief system has things that have to be left in tension. If you think your (in a general sense) theology has zero holes or wrapped up nice and logically then I think that is being really disingenuous. Many of the wonderful works of God will be beyond our comprehension.
Maybe I am wrong in my beliefs, but at the end of the day Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life and I will not bow to any other. I'm sure I'll have missed some theological aspects along the way when it's all said and done.
I agree to an extent. Most of my experiences with Reformed were more "I'm right and you're wrong".
So far this thread has been the exact opposite
I distinctly remember when you claimed Catholics were presenting a "false" Gospel. That is a pretty loaded statement. In fact, I believe that is what triggered my first responses.
This works both ways. And actually only one or two posters on either side got personal and nasty.
Happy New Year my friend!
You as well!
I mean, what I was getting at was the fact that you see in this other thread about images and veneration - not falling in line on that topic is considered to be an anathema. So to me, that is placing a lot of importance on what I might call secondary issues and distorting the main message of the gospel.
And the creeds many of us - RCC/EO/Protestants - recite at our Sunday gatherings, we are claiming to be part of the one holy catholic/apostolic church. Yet the anathema essentially doesn't apply to me because I am not in "their" church in the first place even though we just said ONE HOLY CATHOLIC church. So it's agree with everything we say and require of you, or you're basically illegitimate.
I know you and @The Banned consistently speak of your heart towards unity, but at the end of the day we have these things that immediately seem to cut through everyone.
But, I could be misunderstanding some of it 
I responded on that thread a few minutes ago, and I hope it helps express where we're coming from. Couple thoughts here:
1. It seems like we place a lot of importance on "secondary things" but the reality is that it's the other way around. There are "secondary practices" that aid in the important thing (faith in Jesus Christ and doing His father's will). Those secondary practices come under attack, often times because some practitioners do abuse it. So there is a massive overreaction that says the practice must be done away with completely. What we see the church do is say "this side is wrong AND that side is wrong and what is right is (insert teaching here)." It becomes a big deal because of disagreement in the church members. Without major disagreements needing a solution, the church never would have had to weigh in at all. Did you know the Catholic Church actually agreed with most of Luther's theses? They said "you are right, you cannot use indulgences, etc in that way". Then they said "but you can use indulgences this way" and explained how to do it without being in contradiction to God's word and the holy traditions.
2. You aren't in the Catholic Church as we use the term, so saying that we can make you not Catholic is impossible. We cannot remove you from what you aren't apart of. Now, does that mean we don't share faith in Jesus Christ? Absolutely not, and we don't claim that. It's simply complicated by the fact that there are thousands of different interpretations of what "faith in Jesus Christ" entails. It may help for you to read what I wrote to Martin immediately after my response to you. Unless you can say that you've truly read through all of church teachings, weighed them all and disagreed with them, then we can't say you're actively refusing the church with full knowledge and will. We are all products of our upbringings. We do not believe that God is going to hold everyone accountable for all the things they didn't know and couldn't have known. That would be gnostic.
3. You can still say you are apart of the Catholic Church with the intent that you give it and not be a liar. You can have the desire and even the belief that you are apart of the one body of Christ, and it can be true. It's why Catholics can say that Christians in other denominations are still our brothers and sisters in Christ. We can and do believe that Christians in other denomination can be saved, even if you never cross the Tiber. That is up to God and God alone to decide, not us. You will find no church teaching (even the teaching of anathema) that says the church has the power to make that call. So we can be joined together when you recite that creed. It's just not a perfect joint. You are still "in" the Catholic Church (potentially) but it's an irregular "in".
Now this would not have applied to the original reformers. They knew what they were leaving and left with full knowledge and will. They were ordained priests. But 500 years later? That's not on you. Not unless you have truly done what I stated in point 2 and rejected it anyway.
4. This is why my call for unity centers on "what did Jesus leave us?" He left us a church. He prayed for it to be one. He did not leave instructions. He left teachers. And those teachers left teachers. And they kept on down the line with the Holy Spirit guiding them in their teachings on the faith along the way. So I'm not saying "unite by accepting all of our teachings!!!!" I'm saying unite by going to the Church. THEN let's work on understanding the teachings together.
