Here is what we discuss over on the Catholci Board... I thoguht it owidl make a nice topic here.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/08/19/communion.denied.ap/index.html

A girl is refused communion because they won substitute Rice wafers for Wheat. Can not Jesus do all thigns though?

Can he not be preasent in rice wafers?

Their are other ( And better donne) articles on this as I have read to-day, I shall post them later tomorrow or monday.

So what does everyone else thing?

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), August 21, 2004

Answers

RICE!!! ITS WHATS FOR DINNER!!! BUT NOT FOR COMMUNION!!! DISRORDER SUFFERERS MUST LUMP IT !!!

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), August 21, 2004.

Yes Zarove, wheat it the magical ingredient.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 21, 2004.

I was rather more interested in discussing what you thought of this episode. I for one htink Rice can, and shoudd, be used in this case. it isnt out of choice or irreverence, after all, btu over a medical condition.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), August 21, 2004.

You are right Zarove, the Roman organization is just being legalistic in this case. Also, is this girl saved or not? If we are to believe the Roman argument about the Eucharist in John 6, then following it to it's logical conclusion, this girl is not saved.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 21, 2004.

The Catholic Church is only following what Christ instructed. The little girl's mother is willing to disobey what Christ has instructed. How is this legalistic issue not acceptable? The Jews walked away from Christ in much the same way; they didn't understand and were not willing to put their faith in what Christ was instructing.

I'll use one of your phrases, David: "You are making God a lier if you do not partake in the Eucharist as it was prescribed by Christ."

...............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 21, 2004.

Well, the Eucharist is not present in John 6. This is merely reading in to the text on something that is not there.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 21, 2004.

"The Jews walked away from Christ in much the same way; they didn't understand and were not willing to put their faith in what Christ was instructing." - rod

We posted at the same time. No where in John 6 do you find anything about the Eucharist. As I said, you are reading things into the text.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 21, 2004.

I didn't call it "Eucharist" in regards to John 6. I merely made the inference of disobeying Christ in both situations. I believe you have made the association of the Eucharist.

....................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 21, 2004.

Zarove???

Are you entertaining the idea that Christ is present in th Eucharist? Is there a ray of light intersecting the paths of faith in your understandings of the Holy Eucharist?

...................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 21, 2004.

No, he is questioning Roman Catholics on why they believe wheat is the magical ingredient. As in, if Christ can be present in wheat 'wafers', why can't he be in rice ones?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 21, 2004.

Could Christ be present in a wafer made from rice, rye, sawdust, or tofu? Sure. But, man doesn't put Christ in those materials. Christ has decided. Is wheat "magical" (David's word)? I think Jesus denounced "magic".

.........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 21, 2004.

So the girl is damned because she has not had communion.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 21, 2004.

No, not because she has not partaken in the Holy Communion. Her mom has made the choice for her to deny the wine, which is also considered Holy Communion. I don't know if the little girl has rejected the Holy Eucharist (wine) on her own or if she has been persuaded by her mom. It is an issue of rejecting by will, not by physical conditions.

.........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 21, 2004.

We are talking about accepting Christ as our Saviour in regards to the partaking of the Holy Eucharist.

.............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 21, 2004.

Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves."

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 21, 2004.

I often relfect on that verse whether Jesus was rebuking the Jews for being dead. By "dead" I mean they having no faith in Christ and therefore being without Salvation.

....................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 21, 2004.

Still, from a Catholic persepctied, cant Jesus place himself in the rice wafer? Why does the Host have to be Wheat, in cases where peopel canot consume it? To optian inner spiritual life, you woudl die an early deah in such matters! Woudl not it be best to permit the substetute, sicne it is for health reasons, such as when Mass is allowed ot be Missed by those incapable of attending?

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), August 21, 2004.

Here's the problem.

By changing the matter of the wafer, we are not being faithful and, therefore, we are making a liar out of someone.

What should we think if a person takes the Holy Eucharist and then dies as a result of consuming the gluten contained in the wafer? Well, let me provide a list of possible answers:

1. Transubstantiation did not occur.

2. The victim did not believe and fell victim to power of suggestion that gluten was still present in the wafer.

3. Death was inevitable, but not because of the gluten. The gluten was never present because of Transubstantiation. The victim is saved, anyway, because of their faith.

4. The victim's death or advers symptoms after partaking of the Eucharist is evidence that Transubstantiation did not take place. This may lead one to believe that everything about our faith is false.

5. By changing the matter of the wafer, we are putting our faith in man instead of God. We are saying, then, that we know better than God. We are saying that God is a liar.

I would dare say that nothing harmful will happen to that little girl when she partakes of the Holy Eucharist in its traditional offering. But, evidently, I am probably the only person in the world who would think such a thing. I wonder if I would partake of the Eucharist if I had the same health condition that the little girl has. The martyrs went to their death because of the words and actions that went forth proclaiming their faith in Christ. Is this the same predicament? Is the Church true and correct in not providing a wafer sans wheat?

.........................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 22, 2004.

the *obligation* is to take the Body and Blood once per year (during Easter). and a teardrop of Consecrated Wine would suffice. if they were *Catholic*, they would know that and honour it.

moreover, they would not abandon the Church, and directly shun the centre-piece of Catholicism, for some man-made tradition.

is a handicapped person right to choose as his church the one with the best wheelchair access??!?!! do fat Christians go where the large padded seats are?!?!?!?! do lazy ones go to the Church that is nearest?!?!???! give me a break.

i feel sorry for the girl - that's a tough allergy to carry through life - but cannot help but feel that she has been badly let down by her "mother".

i feel sorrier for protestants who find this story amusing. the laugh is actually on the protestants - as in, this is why some of you protest.....

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), August 25, 2004.

Jesus just wanted us to eat bread together and drink wine to remember and proclaim his death. It's symbolic, but it is also sacramental in the sense that we are physically united to the rest of the church through sharing these two elements.

WE are the body of Christ. We are physically united to each other through eating the bread. We are the body. Our corporate body is "sustained" by the same elements which Christ's body was sustained by.

The girl should eat at least a speck of the wheat bread. It won't kill her. She should want to be physically united to the rest of the body... that is, if she insists on being part of the Roman brand of Christianity... which is a whole other problem.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), August 25, 2004.

I feel sorry for the people that cannot see the hypocrisy of the Roman organization.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 25, 2004.

Hmm......I feel concern for the blind leading the blind.

...............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 25, 2004.

How many of us, in this forum, sit together and agree on one solid doctrine and theology, David? What would eventually happen is the pointing of fingers and the calling of "hypocrits" for having such diverse beliefs. So, as you feel sorry for the Roman organization, you will envitable feel more sorrow for your non-Catholics and Protestants because of their conflicting views, interpretations, and beliefs.

I choose not to feel sorry for anyone. We each have hope and the offer of Salvation. Many times the cup is halfway full, not halfway empty. I guess it's all on how we look at things.

......

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 25, 2004.

Ah! they still spell it "inevitably", not "envitably". My brain gets clogged!

....................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 25, 2004.

If the wafer literally turns into the body and blood of Jesus--then the girl shouldn't have a problem., right?

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 25, 2004.

According to James article, Wheat has gluten.

What about rye, oats, barley, spelt? Do all have gluten?

After all, Jews can use any of those as substitutes for passover bread.

If transubstantiation was true, then, we would all sin:

a)eating human flesh, which is prohibited b)drinking human blood, which is prohibited c) Leaving any flesh or blood remains after disposing of the cup and bread.

How many people died in the past who had celiac disease and their death was attributed to being sinners?

It is the thought that counts, since now we know allergies do kill.

I would give rice to the girl. After all, Chinese have been living on Rice for so long. If Jesus had been born Chinese, we would be having rice for communion!!!!

The Christian Yahwist

The Man of Yahweh

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), August 25, 2004.

The ezboard thread.

Read Andy's post in that forum.

......................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 25, 2004.

I believe that Christ spoke to the Apostles saying-- that by throwing wheat into the ground and allowing it to die, many more shall live. Obviously, He was teaching the message of His Sacrifice for everyone's Salvation. The wheat was used to signify Christ.

..................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 25, 2004.

Wheat was most likely what Jesus used during his last supper, Rod.

The point is not the wheat, but what Jesus said.

The word used was bread (lechem). Which in his language also means food.

So food of any kind would do.

(of course not human meat or other types of meats since Jesus is talking about his meat).

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), August 25, 2004.

this quote has been plastered all over Grenspun but no-oe seems to listen, even though no-one can refute it. its one of the earliest Christian writings, pre-dating the collation of the Bible by the Church.

""For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour,having been made flesh and blood for our salvation,so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word,and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished,is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh."" Justin Martyr,First Apology,66(A.D. 110-165),in ANF,I:185

IOW, the debate is not - and *CANNOT* be - about the truth of Real Presence and Transubstantiation - which are ancient truths from the earliest Christians - as this and other witings prove.

IOW, if Real Presence was a lie, the Church would almost certainly not have included St John's Gospel in the Canon, St John being unequivocal about this point.

it takes 16th century revisionism to twist 2,000 year old truths.

and the more fndamental pint remains - the mother was clearly not much of a Catholic if this drives her to a manmade tradition.

i feel very sorry for the girl. this is deadly serious. her salvation is at grave risk.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), August 26, 2004.

Elpidio, a multiple choice question.

at the Last Supper, did Our Lord say

1 "do this in memory of Me" OR 2 "do something like this in memory of Me, but change the bits you don't fancy" OR 3 "don't do this in memory of Me"

so were a priest to attempt to Consecrate a Big Mac and a Coke, or a Chicken Vindaloo and a Beer, at Mass, would that be following the Bible?

that sounds ridiculous, i know, but it's what you are arguing, isn't it?

-- Ian (ib@ertifgo.com), August 26, 2004.

This is all so silly. Jesus said to do this--break bread--in His memory.

The consecration is a false doctrine based on a gross misinterpretation.

If the host literally becomes the body and blood of Jesus--then this little girl should not be having this trouble in the first place because it isn't bread anymore anyway---hm?

Doesn't that prove that the whole consecrstion thing is a farce? Can the literal body and blood of Jesus Christ really kill someone or make them sick or allergic?

No--this is all symbolic and if the little girl can't have wheat-- then another symbol should do just fine...

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 26, 2004.

This is so silly and darn right tickly.

Let's look at the Sephardic and Ashkenazic Passover Suppers (charoset). The Sephardic Jews allowed rice. The Ashkenazic Jews forbade rice and used wheat. But, the symbolism centered around the suffering people of Judaism. Then, the wheat took on significance in Jesus' teaching.

.....................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 26, 2004.

Faith-"No--this is all symbolic and if the little girl can't have wheat-- then another symbol should do just fine... "

But, Faith, the little girl believes in the Holy Eucharist. You believe it as symbolism.

.................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 26, 2004.

That's too bad rod..,

Maybe if she believed in Jesus Christ as God has revealed Him--she wouldn't even have a dillemma

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 26, 2004.

But, she is Catholic and, therefore, believes that Jesus is God. That's Catholicism. The Protestants did manage to retain that theology.

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 26, 2004.

The little girl is involved in an unfortunate tug of war and can in no way be held responsible one way or another.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), August 26, 2004.

True, Jim. And, fortunately, she will grow up to find her resolve.

..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 26, 2004.

Yes Rod, and hopefully she will eventually get and understand the necessary information to lead her to the right decision.

It will be difficult if her parents are so emotionally impacted by this situation that they unconsciously or consciously lead her to "their" decision.

I can certainly understand a parents instinct to protect their child. As a person with a serious death producing peanut allergy, I know my mother would have intense reservations about letting me have a peanut partical "even" if consecrated when I was a kid. But--- she would not have changed faiths over it.

Seems like some grandstanding going on here. Their feelings will definitely effect hers.

-- Jim Furst (furst@flash.net), August 26, 2004.

So then.,

Can we at least admit that the wafer does not literally change into the body and blood of Jesus Christ?

I know you'll still say it does [transubstantiate] and that it's a miracle because it happens even though the wafer still looks like a wafer. But then I ask--how can such a miraculous wafer harm this child?

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 27, 2004.

Sorry, Lutherans do not belive what you believe.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 27, 2004.

Faith,

From what you are writing, I think you are failing to fully understand transubstantiation. The belief is that while the bread and wine retain (chemically) the traits of bread and wine, they still become the body and blood of Christ.

A few Catechism quotes to clarify things:

1413 By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity (cf. Council of Trent: DS 1640; 1651).

Notice here it says that the species is still bread and wine. Thus the chemical effects of bread remain, and could potentially damage someone with this disease. However, often a small amount is OK for these people. GT posted a link on the Catholic forum about this, how it's mainly a US issue due to how our doctors deal with the disease compared to Europe. (http://www.celiac.com/st_prod.html?p_prodid=696).

1412 The essential signs of the Eucharistic sacrament are wheat bread and grape wine, on which the blessing of the Holy Spirit is invoked and the priest pronounces the words of consecration spoken by Jesus during the Last Supper: "This is my body which will be given up for you. . . . This is the cup of my blood. . . ."

Here we see why it cannot be anything other than wheat. Because wheat is an *essential sign* of the Eucharistic sacrament.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), August 27, 2004.

An option for those with Celiac Disease:

Benedictine nuns discover way to produce low-gluten Communion hosts

"Gluten content: .01 percent. Safe enough, according to Fasano and other medical experts, for consumption by almost all celiac suffers."

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), August 27, 2004.

I understand the Catholic view of *mystery* in this doctrine of Transubstantiation. But there is no evidence that it is true. The bread and wine remain bread and wine. I find nothing in the Scriptures that proves this either.

Maybe this is why John--in his vision of the harlot on the beast-- sees her with the words "Mystery Babylon" across her head?

Anyway--shouldn't the little girl be able to eat the body and blood of Christ without fearing death if it is such a miraculous piece of bread?

It seems you want it both ways..it is the body and blood of Christ-- but not really., not in any evidential way....

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 27, 2004.

James,

Modern Day Lutherans do not follow Luther, and they do not believe what you believe.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 27, 2004.

"Modern Day Lutherans"? Then, they must not be Lutherans if they don't believe like "Lutherans".

I think the word of the day is "consubstantiation". That's Lutheran for you and me. The elements exist right along the body and blood of Christ.

.................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 27, 2004.

Faith-"Anyway--shouldn't the little girl be able to eat the body and blood of Christ without fearing death if it is such a miraculous piece of bread? "

Yes, Faith. Read it again. Emily has provided a link.

Emily-"Gluten content: .01 percent. Safe enough, according to Fasano and other medical experts, for consumption by almost all celiac suffers."

If the little girl eats the Holy Eucharist (as presented in Emily's link), she will not die. So, the Holy Eucharist will not kill anyone and it is safe--it is the body and blood of Christ. Does God exist in the absents of matter? Yes. Does the wafer have to weigh a pound? No. So, your assertions are befuddled.

........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 27, 2004.

Hee, hee, even in the "absence" of peculiar spellings.

..................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 27, 2004.

Actually, rod, only way to translate "Modern-day Lutherans" is evangelical. You can go to various Lutheran Synod homepages and it will say clearly that they believe the Eucharist IS the body and blood of our Lord.

God bless!

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), August 27, 2004.

I'm not trying to prove the Real Presence or transubstantiation with this question. Just want to know some of the reasoning behind the Eucharist being a symbol.

I know Jesus used symbols as analogies to understand the kingdom of heaven and other things (e.g., "I am the vine..."). These are ways for us to understand a greater reality. But why do you think Jesus commanded Christians to do something that is merely symbolic? Why would the early Christians place such great importance on something that is just a symbol? If it is simply to remember Him, why didn't He just say, remember me? Why command us to do something specific? Is there another time where Jesus told us to do something that is merely symbolic?

Thanks.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), August 28, 2004.

This is ridiculous, but I'll say it anyway.

Had Jesus wanted His main objective to be symbolic in nature in "rememberance" of Him, why didn't He have portraits made and handed out? Yes, lunacy is one of my family's traits.

If it's only symbolic, there isn't a need to make such a big deal about the Last Supper--I get the meaning. So, there is much more to it. That's always been my concern regarding the Last Supper.

.............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 28, 2004.

To Andy--

You asked:

I'm not trying to prove the Real Presence or transubstantiation with this question. Just want to know some of the reasoning behind the Eucharist being a symbol.

I know Jesus used symbols as analogies to understand the kingdom of heaven and other things (e.g., "I am the vine..."). These are ways for us to understand a greater reality. But why do you think Jesus commanded Christians to do something that is merely symbolic? Why would the early Christians place such great importance on something that is just a symbol? If it is simply to remember Him, why didn't He just say, remember me? Why command us to do something specific? Is there another time where Jesus told us to do something that is merely symbolic?

I think that Jesus did say--remember me--everytime you eat this meal-- remember me. I have often thought that by *this meal* He was refering to the Passover celebration in particular--but that's just me.

You are right that John used alot of symbolic language in his gospel. The Roman Catholic Church claims that anyone who doesn't take these words literally:

"Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me." John 6:53-57...

....Is simply spiritualizing the text to avoid an unwanted conclusion. But I wonder if the literal meaning of this text is supportive of the doctrine of Transubstantiation?

I think that the literal meaning of this text is perhaps not necessarily the clear meaning. I mean--the term literal can mean quite range of different things. If we are going to push this text to absurd literalism--then we must also accept an absurdly literal understanding.., and then we must also follow through with all of John's text.,and all of Scripture for that matter. Then you will find then that the Bible is full of absurd and complete nonsense. You bring up one example where Jesus refers to himself as a vine.

Jesus also claimed to be the gate of the sheep in John 10: literally this means that Jesus is a gate, complete with hinges and maybe even a lock?

And of course--Jesus is also a good shepherd. Does this verse indicate that Jesus is not only a door and a piece of bread.., but a shepherd who came only to save sheep?

John 10:14-15

"I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me-- just as the Father knows me and I know the Father--and I lay down my life for the sheep."

Nonsense indeed. The question I ask is "why" does the Catholic recognize the symbolic language everywhere in the gospel of John--and even in His book of Revelation--yet in John 6--the Roman Catholic Church insists on such absurdity? It is not consistent.

I think that John loved to pick up on the different ways in which Jesus communicated a point. This actually sets him a bit apart from the other gospel writers.

In John 6:32-35

Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world." "Sir," they said, "from now on give us this bread." Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty."

Clearly we can see that Jesus is telling them that He is sent by God the Father--that He is from heaven--and that if one comes to Him [a clear reference to faith] will not hunger {clearly a reference to something spiritual--otherwise we can expect to never hunger physically]...

...and the one who believes in Me will never thirst [a clear reference to something spiritual--otherwise we can expect not to ever thirst again in the physical sense].

Jesus is refering to our spiritual need. The sybolic language is clear--we all have a spiritual hunger and Jesus is the One to satisfy.

Coming and believing., introduced as hunger and thirst--will soon become "eating and drinking".

verses 47-51 tells us:

"I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life. I am the bread of life. Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."

This, I think--points us to the cross--where Christ gives His flesh and blood for the life of the world.

The Jews seem confused by Jesus' symbolic language and they begin to unravel. Verse 52: "Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" They want to know how can jesus give them His flesh to eat--but of course, this is not what jesus is saying. He is speaking of His coming sacrifice and the resultant forgiveness. So he says:

verses 53-58

Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever."

The Jews are dwelling on the physical--they can't seem to rise above that. Jesus finally attempts to bring them up to His plane--he moves on with the metaphor that is already firmly established-- eating=believing.

Jesus has placed *eating my flesh* and *drinking my blood* in the exact same position as *recieving and believing on Him.* I think the literal meaning--given the parallelism used throughout Jesus' teaching--has to refer to the union of the believer, by faith, with Jesus Christ.

The plain words of Christ at the Last Supper were clear--which the disciples themselves would have understood at the time [they have just celebrated the Passover Supper--an incredibly symbolic meal itself]. Even though He had not yet been crucified--He was telling them that "His body" [which no one thought that he had just changed the bread into-literally, as He was still alive] and that His blood [no one thought He had just literally turned the wine into] was the blood of the covenant--and they understood against the background of the Passover--that He was talking about a sacrificial covenant to come.

Christ was using the elements of bread and wine as symbols for His broken body and the blood of the New Covenant. They have to be symbols since the reality is that He had not yet been crucified--yet He speaks as if it was already done when he says *shed*--as past tense.

Communion is a memorial to that one time sacrifice at Calvary-- something Christ wants us to remember.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 28, 2004.

Thanks Faith. I think I'm beginning to understand where you are coming from.

Surely we can remember Christ's sacrifice without using symbols and renacting the Last Supper. Why do you think Jesus specifically told us to do the Last Supper continuously throughout history in order to remember Him and His one time sacrifice? Put another way, why didn't Jesus tell the Apostles to remember Him without telling them to remember Him when they do this (i.e., the Last Supper)?

Is there any other place in Scripture where Jesus tells us to do something that is merely symbolic?

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), August 28, 2004.

Yes--

Baptism-the water ritual, for example, is a symbolic gesture signifying rebirth....but the real baptism takes place in the heart the moment we believe and the Holy Spirit comes on us.

I really think we were to celebrate Jesus in the Passover--every year. I think the Jews do so--however--without recognizing Jesus.

His Body--the church, does this in rememberance--and how often and the meal itself has greatly changed and varied.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 28, 2004.

In the Bible it is clearly stated that John the Baptist was paving the way for Jesus. Water baptism was signifying the rebirth we would experience in Christ's death and resurrection. And John the Baptist himself said that he baptised with water--but that it was in anticipation of Jesus who would come and baptise with the Holy Spirit.

The moment that one is born-again doesn't happen when we are emmersed in water--it happens before that--which compells us to then be baptised in the first place. We believe and then we want to be baptised.

Infants--of course--are clueless to the whole process.

-- ("faith01@myway.com'), August 28, 2004.

Thanks for your reply Faith.

I'm still wondering why it is so important to do symbolic actions like the Last Supper and Baptism. If it's important because Jesus told us to do these things, why does He tell us to do symbolic actions? It has to be for some purpose.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), August 28, 2004.

Andy

I think it is so that we remember. We rely on Christ's sacrifice for our salvation--but if it gets lost--who can be saved?

Obviously we can go back and forth and start to argue that an all powerful God surely doesn't need any of this nonsense to accomplish His goals--but I believe one of His main goals is that we be free- willed creatures so that we can truly love Him. He wants us by faith-- and so--we are a religious people.

God is a symbolic, ritualist God. Look at His covenants in the Old Testament. He is a covenant God who required sacrifice. There were ritualistic proceedures for everything.

He created us in His image--and we tend to be ritualist and symbolic, religious people.

Even people who reject God--still wind up using their religious., symbolic and ritualistic tendencies--they just use them apart from God. Consider pagans.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 28, 2004.

James-- Many Protestant denominations couldn't quite leave behind their Catholicism--altogether--like Luther--who, although he recognized so much error--failed to recognize it all.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 28, 2004.

Are you saying that ritualism and symbolism is important for Christians too? Do the symbolic actions in the rituals of the Last Supper and Baptism have any real spiritual effects on us as Christians? If not, why does Christ have us do them? If it is for our own benefit (and not God's), what are the benefits we gain?

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), August 28, 2004.

I feel like I answered already--Andy--

But I will answer again.

I think the purpose of our religiosity and symbolism is so that we can remember.

It is important to remember what Christ has done for us--

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 28, 2004.

"Many Protestant denominations couldn't quite leave behind their Catholicism" - Faith

The myth of libertarian free will has also clinged to some Protestants from Rome.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 28, 2004.

"Let me give a quote (I'll let you guess who said it) from this forum" - James

This poster is not a Protestant (Even he admits it), and does not practice Sola Scriptura but Solo Scriptura. ;)

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 28, 2004.

Faith01,

You do not understand why some baptize infants. It's not merely something they learned from Rome (which is baptismal regeneration), it has to do with the Covenants.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 28, 2004.

Faith,

I understand that it is important to remember, and that rituals and symbols help us remember. But, why do you think we must remember by "doing" something like the Last Supper instead of just sitting and reading the Bible? I promise to stop this round of questioning after your reply.

Thanks for bearing with me. I really want to understand what you are saying though.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), August 28, 2004.

Andy--

It has often been my thought that Jesus worked this symbolism into the Passover meal to save the Jews from their own rejection by hopefully opening their eyes.

I don't know.

For us--it is like any celebration or festival--it is done to keep the memory fresh...to keep the sacrifice in the forefront of our minds--so that others will know and will ultimately receive Christ as their Savior--in all the generations to come.

I don't know if you ever experienced a Sedar meal at Passover time-- but you can see them celebrating the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. They are receiving Him and maybe this saves them.., I don't know? [My secret hope] : 0

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 28, 2004.

Thanks for that Faith.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), August 28, 2004.

David said: The myth of libertarian free will has also clinged to some Protestants from Rome.

David, please define "libertarian free will." I do not see how this fits with the Catholic view.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), August 28, 2004.

It's more likely--David.,

That Calvin himself had the hardest time letting go of his Catholicism or of Augustine in particular.

Free will is the whole point to *why* God didn't just program us like robots. True love must be given of one's own free will--otherwise., what kind of love is it? Is forced or programmed love, real??

God is love--and He wants our love in return. That is His main objective.

-- (:faith01@myway.com"), August 28, 2004.

Ah., and see., James..

That is just one very good point. Because if God actually does predestinate people either to heaven or hell--and it is known from before the begining of time--then what purpose would there be for evangelism?

Calvinists do evangelize ya know.

It all seems like a waste of time if predestination as Calvin explains it--is true. For that matter., what would be the purpose of the cross?

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 28, 2004.

As for evangelism in Calvinism, I have heard about this as I went to a Calvinist college. Basically hyper-Calvinists (ie. extremists) would say that evangelism is not necessary.

My Calvinist Bible professor basically said, 1. It's necessary because Jesus commanded it (Mt 28 - Great Commission) and 2. You don't know if you are the instrument that God will use to bring about that person's salvation. Thus the predestination of their salvation could be brought about through your intervention.

Personally, I disagree with predestination. My response to these points: Why would Jesus command something otherwise unnecessary, if God was going to fulfill His plan anyway? Logically, the Calvinist position does not make sense to me in this area. However, to be fair, I presented their response to that challenge.

I came very close to accepting Calvinism. The only thing that prevented me from accepting it completely was the idea that God basically created people to go to hell. Now that's not necessarily how they would word it, but that's essentially how I see it. I didn't care so much about the seeming lack of free will, because I figured it's in God's hands, which is really the best place to be anyway. But the idea of only allowing certain people a chance out of hell does not seem like the love of a Father that God possesses. Now that I'm becoming Catholic I would never revert to Protestant or become Calvinist, as I feel that I have a better understanding of things. But at one point I was very close.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), August 28, 2004.

To clarify: Personally, I disagree with the Calvinist view of predestination. Sorry, from being at a Calvinist college for so long, "predestination" in our vocabulary usually only meant their view.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), August 28, 2004.

David said: Haven't people ever heard of Augustine, Calvin, Luther, Spurgeon, Sproul, Piper, White?

Yes, David. I have heard of them all. With the exception of Spurgeon (not sure about him, I may have read his stuff), I have read at least something from each of those men.

However, Augustine was not a Calvinist. He lived way before Calvin and wrote about submitting to the Bishop of Rome (ie. the Pope). Since the Calvinist version of predestination is heretical in the Catholic faith, Augustine would not have held to it. He cannot rightly be called a Calvinist.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), August 28, 2004.

Emily.., Wow. I am impressed.

I agree with everything you said here about predestination : )

I know you don't like Dave Hunt--but he wrote a book titled:

"What Love Is This?" Subtitled: Calvinism's Misrepresentation of God

You would find this work very agreeable.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 29, 2004.

Faith01,

There is a book you'd might like to read, it's called Debating Calvinism by James White & Dave Hunt. IMO, Dave Hunt did a terrible job on his part.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 29, 2004.

I did read it..David. I thought Dave Hunt was far more convincing.

And as a matter of fact--I also have read James White's The Roman Catholic Controversy--which I thought was right on.

It is funny how Dave Hunt and James White can be in 100% agreement about the Catholic Church--and then divide altogether in regards to Calvinism.

David--I emailed you three times., and I just want to know if you got them?

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 29, 2004.

What is the body and blood of Jesus composed of?

physical food and drink.

As the old saying goes: You are what you eat.

If we eat Christ's Bread, we are eating what his flesh is composed of.

If the Word of God is tied to something physical, and we eat that physical thing, we can be sure we are eating Christ, the Word.

For those who can't accept the Word being wholly united to the physical and tangible:

"The Word became flesh"

When the Word became flesh, did that exclude any bread he ate and wine he drank? When did bread become the body of Jesus? After he ate it? After it was fully digested? When? Can't Jesus accept whatever he wants as part of His Body? What about the milk Jesus drank from his mother's breast? Didn't that become a part of His Body?

It's strange to fathom these mysteries... I admit.

Speaking of accepting strange things as part of His Body, He accepts YOU if you believe in Him. Isn't it more strange to think of yourself as a part of Christ's Body than it is to think of a piece of bread as a part of His Body?

When Jesus accepted bread as part of his body it became part of his body. The reality depends only on His Word. If He says you are a part of His Body, it's true whether you understand it fully or not.

When we eat that bread, we are eating that which is a part of Christ's Body. It remains bread. It doesn't transform. When it's sanctified, it's a part of Christ's Body just as it is - simple bread.

When we eat it, we who are members of Christ's Body, we are nourished by the Word contained within that simple Bread.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), August 29, 2004.

David says:

"There is a book you'd might like to read, it's called Debating Calvinism by James White & Dave Hunt. IMO, Dave Hunt did a terrible job on his part."

Faith says:

"I did read it..David. I thought Dave Hunt was far more convincing.

And as a matter of fact--I also have read James White's The Roman Catholic Controversy--which I thought was right on."

Interesting, David thought Dave Hunt did a terrible job debating calvinism. Faith, thought James White was the loser in that debate. Faith thinks James White did a great job against the Catholics.

No chance either of you might be a little bit biased?

Faith also says:

"It is funny how Dave Hunt and James White can be in 100% agreement about the Catholic Church--and then divide altogether in regards to Calvinism."

It's not really that funny, because Protestantism is a divided philosophy. I've been saying that all along.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), August 29, 2004.

Yes, we are biased. Now go back to your Romanist forum.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 29, 2004.

"It's not really that funny, because Protestantism is a divided philosophy" -

No more divided than your organization is ;)

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 29, 2004.

"My organization is more united than your groups of organizations!!!!"

Wow, Let's all convert to Rome!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm defeated, I see the "chaos of Protestantism".

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 29, 2004.

But I also see the hypocrisy and division of the Roman communion. I guess all of Christianity is not true then huh??

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 29, 2004.

It amazes me that the Catholic Church doesn't recognize that it is knee deep in all this division. After all--who were the Protestants and why are they protesting?

Paul recognized the division right from the begining and warned us all that if a teaching doesn't come directly from his lips or in his handwriting--do not believe it.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 29, 2004.

Faith01,

I am not sure how you can say something like that. White's calvinistic leanings are all over the book!

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 29, 2004.

The Roman Catholic Controversy that is.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 29, 2004.

Yes--but David--it's all in the perception we have.

I never heard his Calvinistic view in that book until after I learned what Calvinism is.

When a Calvinist says that we are all saved by the grace of God-- everyone in the world--I would never automatically conclude that every one in the world really only means the elect.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 29, 2004.

How seriously flawed your logic is James! If we are to dismiss Sola Scriptura because of divisions, then we ought to dismiss this Scripture plus and Infallible interpreter position as well because of divisions.

Are you not aware of the Mary-Cults in Latin America? Isn't there a group that worships the "heart of Jesus"?? There are countless of divisions in the Roman organization. Rome just takes you a step back, and makes you disagree on what the "Magisterium says" instead of the Bible. It all falls back to your fallible decisions.

If you cannot see the own divisions in your church, then it is pointless speaking to someone who won't even face reality. Moreover, if you do see the divisions then apply your own logic (a seriously flawed logic) to your own position and abandon Rome!

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 29, 2004.

And you can save this if you want, and I'll save it too. But now I have to purge these things to get the thread back on target.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 29, 2004.

James, Let me put it in simpler terms: You are banned. Beat it.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 29, 2004.

I'll keep that one there.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 29, 2004.

Please tell me which rules I violated. It seems you David violated rules 1,2 and 6.

1. Avoid personal attacks. If you don't agree with what someone posted, debate their post... not the person that posted it. (I.e. Do not attack the character of a forum member)

2. No profanity, vulgarities, obscenities, swearing, name-calling, or mockery.

3. Try your hardest to post in the appropriate thread. Posts found to be off-topic will be deleted. Don't get upset if I delete your post. If your post is deleted, and you didn't save it, email me and I'll see if I have the copy in my mailbox.

4. Inserting Pornography will not be allowed in any way, shape, or form. This includes hyperlinks.

5. No advertisements

6. Be respectful of other people when posting on the message board.

7. Do not post large amounts of material/articles whatsoever. If you want people to read an article, post the hyperlink so people can still access it.

8. Do not post long posts. What constitutes as "long" is up to the moderator. There is a purpose for this, and that is not mess up threads. E.g., Jose Gallegos Church Quotes that takes up a lot of bandwidth.

9. Do not impersonate another member of the message board.

10. Only click the submit button once. Don't to post duplicate messages (One won't really be banned for this)

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), August 29, 2004.

If I violated one of the forum rules I would like to know which one.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), August 29, 2004.

http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00Bq1R

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 29, 2004.

David,

I am sorry if I offended you in some way, I honestly don't know what I did to deserve to be banned. Is it asking too much to have you tell me which rules I violated. I pointed out the rules that I believe you violated, I really would like to know what I did.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), August 29, 2004.

Read the rules again.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 29, 2004.

David,

I have read them twice, and I honestly still can't figure it out.

If you honestly believe that I am that big of a nuisance then I will go my way, but I am asking please tell me which rule I violated.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), August 29, 2004.

http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl? msg_id=00Bq1R

11. Do not insert pictures in your posts - This is stealing people's bandwidth, unless it comes from your own server/web page, and slows down the forum. If you wish to insert a picture, ask the moderator.

12. Do not plagiarize - that means don't quote material and claim it is yours if it isn't. In case this comes up in any future dispute, you claim it is your own once you post it.

13. Do not taunt the Moderator publicly. If you have a question about something (e.g. deletions, bans) email him/her in private.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 29, 2004.

I apologize, I accept my banning. Thank you for responding.

God Bless.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), August 29, 2004.

Why not just suspend him, why ban?

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), August 29, 2004.

Should all who have broken the rules be banned, or only James?

...................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 29, 2004.

A guy sees a door which reads: "Whosoever wishes may enter and live forever."

When he gets to the other side an angel says, "Welcome! You were predestined from the foundation of the world to enter!"

The door only opens to "Whosoever wishes" and DOES NOT OPEN to "whosoever doesn't wish."

We have free will to enter, but our free will is TOTALLY LIMITED to the degree that we WISH to enter.

Some WISH to enter and some don't WISH.

God can bring situations into a person's life that cause them to WISH to enter. For example, St. Paul was very much persuaded by the light that knocked him off his horse. After that, he WISHED to enter the door. Before that? Nope.

God also has the choice to totally leave a person to himself and never cause that person to think twice about entering the door. Fact is, Jesus doesn't knock everyone off their horse with light and speak to them directly from heaven. He can if He wants, but He chooses not to do this. We have to accept this fact.

We cannot say God is limited by our free will since He can change our "free will" with just a little extra persuasion. It's up to Him.

What's the point in praying that your friend converts to Christ if God has no power to do anything towards answering your prayer? Why ask God to help persuade a soul to enter if God has no power to persuade a soul to enter?

God has the right and power to persuade some and not persuade others. It's just a matter of fact. Who are we to judge His work?

I don't know if this is Calvinistic or whatever you want to label it. All I know is that it's the Truth and every honest believer can see it's true.

But, I know some believers have a hard time with this because then they have to admit their choice to believe in Christ was part of God's Divine Plan and not their own plan.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), August 30, 2004.

David wrote, "Or does God know everything?" To which I replied, "Is there anything that has happened to man or man has caused to happen in the Bible that God did not know would come to pass??? Yes or No???"

David responded with, "The Bible says God knows all things, if you deny that, then your problem is not with me but with God. Also, I don't have to ask Him something He already answered ;) then quotes, 1 John 3:20 For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things."

Let's take a look at some passages in the Old Testament...

Jeremiah 7:31 says, "And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, which I did not command, nor did it come into My heart."

Jer 19:5, "(they have also built the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command or speak, nor did it come into My mind),"

If something never came into God's mind, does it mean that He "knew" it would come to pass???

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), August 29, 2004.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 30, 2004.

Max--

God wishes to persuade all men everywhere. He does this with the cross.

Free will is the reason that not all men choose Christ.

God respects all men--even if it means they will not choose Christ.

If free will isn't true--then God has been insincere in His hundreds of urgent and passionate pleadings and warnings for Israel to repent and obey Him--as expressed through all of His Old Testament prophets.

Israel as a whole rebelled against Him continually and continues in unbelief and the rejection of Messiah to this day. But does this mean that God is defeated? Would God be defeated if not all people in the world end up saved--even though it is His desire that none should perish?

The Scripture, 1 John 2:2, is an unambiguous declaration that Christ is "the propitiation for our sins and not for ours only, but for the sins of the whole world."

Surely "our" refers to the elect/believers. Therefore "the whole world," being in contrast to the elect, can only refer to the unsaved and would prove that Christ's death is propitiatory for all mankind.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 30, 2004.

Max? If God chooses not to bring particular souls to Him, this may be the justification that Satan worshippers need for their motives. Why should one have faith in a god who does not have faith in them? God wants all men to enter The Kingdom of God. BTW, this is exactly what Elpidio has been preaching. Elpidio's church will include all those dislocated souls, at least that's what I understand about Elpidio.

.........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 30, 2004.

David,

I am not sure why you quoted me in this thread, maybe you made a mistake???

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), August 30, 2004.

>God wishes to persuade all men everywhere. He does this with the cross. <

Yes, God calls all men everywhere to repent. He does not, however, allow the message of the cross to reach all men. Remember in Acts when the Holy Spirit did not allow the Apostle to visit a certain region?

>Free will is the reason that not all men choose Christ. <

Of course. But, don't forget: a person cannot choose what he cannot see. Only the Holy Spirit can take the scales off a person's eyes so they can perceive the kingdom of God. If a person does not perceive the gospel of Jesus Christ, it's absolutely impossible for them to choose to believe it.

>God respects all men--even if it means they will not choose Christ.<

Respects? I don't know what you mean here. If you mean that God will not force a person to believe against his will, that's obvious, since believing is a personal thing. But, if you mean that God gives the revelation of Jesus Christ to all men, then you must account for the billions of humans who have died without ever hearing the name of Jesus Christ. God did not get the ultimate revelation of Truth to all these billions of humans. It's not a matter of "respect." It's a matter of God's Divine Will.

>If free will isn't true<

I'll stop you right there and tell you this: I never said free will is not true. I said free will is LIMITED. A person cannot feel compelled to believe in the Truth if they are not persuaded that it is indeed the Truth. Some are blinded. Some are ignorant. Some never get a clear presentation of the gospel. Some never even get an unclear presentation of the gospel. The most anti-Christian person is blinded by Satan and cannot believe until God delivers him from his blindness. St. Paul is a great example.

>then God has been insincere in His hundreds of urgent and passionate pleadings and warnings for Israel to repent<

Of course God is not insincere. God's GENERAL CALL to mankind as a whole is earnest and truly sincere. However, God also has a SPECIFIC CALL on certain individuals He's chosen. St. Paul is a great example of a man God specifically chose to specially convert for the benefit of His Kingdom.

> Would God be defeated if not all people in the world end up saved-- even though it is His desire that none should perish?<

God has the "general desire" that mankind not perish, but this is not the same as His "specific desire" for certain individuals to be saved. Christ specifically chose Paul for His Kingdom and revealed Himself in a spectacular way. He had a "special grace" on Paul that He does not extend to everyone. Some don't even hear the gospel, though He could broadcast it around the world in an instant using angels if He wished.

>The Scripture, 1 John 2:2, is an unambiguous declaration that Christ is "the propitiation for our sins and not for ours only, but for the sins of the whole world." <

Do not assume. I do not hold to the teaching of limited atonement. The scripture is clear that Christ purchased all humans from all ages so that HE ALONE would have the power to condemn or forgive according to His own will. No other person can condemn or accept a person except Jesus Christ, since only He is the One who paid the price for all sin. He bought the right to forgive or condemn with His own Blood. That right is in His hands alone.

On Judgment Day, Christ will condemn some and accept some. By the Cross, He won this right to judge EVERY human being. If He did not die for all men, He would not have this right to judge all men.

>Surely "our" refers to the elect/believers. Therefore "the whole world," being in contrast to the elect, can only refer to the unsaved and would prove that Christ's death is propitiatory for all mankind. <

Yes, the blood of Christ is propitiatory for all mankind. ANY HUMAN WHO WISHES may trust in God for mercy and obtain this mercy based on the blood of Jesus. However, the blood brings forgiveness for some and the blood brings damnation for others. When Christ pours out His wrath on individual sinners, it will be because they refused mercy and trampled God's grace (Christ's blood) and earned their deserved fate. All the sins of a condemned soul are summed up in the blood of Jesus. If a soul does not turn and start trusting in God, that blood will be a witness against him at the judgment. That unrepentant soul will be guilty of the blood of Christ and will be thoroughly punished according to his works.

So, yes... Christ died for all humans, but His blood DOES NOT gain forgiveness for all humans. For some, His blood will only gain them God's fiery wrath. The opportunity is open to ALL, but not all will wish to receive it.

>Max? If God chooses not to bring particular souls to Him, this may be the justification that Satan worshippers need for their motives. Why should one have faith in a god who does not have faith in them?<

First, God does not need faith. God knows all things and does not need to have faith as some modern teachers think. Second, God commands all humans to repent and seek His mercy in the blood of Jesus Christ - to trust in His grace and love. This includes all Satan worshippers. There are many Satan worshippers who have heeded the command to repent, so you cannot use this argument. Your argument totally evaporates because some do repent - that is, God graciously delivers some.

>God wants all men to enter The Kingdom of God.<

No. There are some God has given up on and there is one person in particular whom God will allow to deceive the entire world - who will rise up and cause all to worship himself. Christ will not be sorry to throw this man into hell, nor will God be sorry to throw those who follow this man into the fiery furnace - to slowly destroy their souls according to the measure of their evil deeds. You cannot say that God wants all to enter His Kingdom. God has reserved some men as instruments of His wrath. God will not reveal the grace of Christ to these men through a blinding light from heaven like St. Paul so graciously received. The only light these men will be given is the dark fire of hell.

>Elpidio's church will include all those dislocated souls, at least that's what I understand about Elpidio.<

What does "Elpidio's church" have to do with any of this?

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), August 31, 2004.

Max? Where do you get your stuff? I don't have time right now to go over your points, but I will, eventually.

The Apostles were told not to enter certain parts because they would get their carcasses kicked! Even Christ avoided certain areas. But, initially, the Gospels were only for the Chosen People--the Jews. So, I can understand how you would hang on to such doctrines. But, hey! we're in the now and all are offered His Salvation. I don't know how you would know that God decided not to include that offer to all mankind.

Of course, you don't understand what Elpidio's church has to do with this. So, take the time to understand what Elpidio is all about before ignoring him. I'll tell you again, cuz it seems that you have ignored my reasoning, again, Elpidio intends to include all walks of faith into his church. This is what St. Paul was about , too. This is what God is about, too. We are to eventually become one with God. So, your doctrine doesn't quite jive with the whole Salvation plan. John 3:16 probably reads differently in your Bible and that is why you preach what you do.

Now, come on guy, join the gang and include those poor souls out there who need saving. I'm sure Jesus would appreciate that.

............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 31, 2004.

Max?

Can you site any Scripture that tells us that man is unable to believe unless God first sheds the scales from his eyes? Or as the Calvinist would put it--until God regenerates man?

From what I can glean from the Scriptures--faith comes from believing- -and believing from hearing the gospel...then we are regenerated or born again. Faith comes first.

I am also thinking of the verses that tell us that man is without excuse because he knows God--because creation itself testifies to Him.

Do you seriously think that all the Old Testament people went to hell because Jesus had not been born yet?

I am also thinking of verses where we are told that God does not play favorites. Can you give me any biblical reason why God would not choose to reveal himself to certain individuals over others?

We know that He could choose to do that--He is God after all. But can you prove that he has done that? Can you prove that His mercy is not big enough to extend to all--each and every individual and that God has determined some to go to hell? Give me one verse where God sends someone to hell for no apparent fault of that person--but just because God feels like it..,and why he would choose not to extend his mercy to that individual.

This of course is very Calvinistic and definately puts a big question mark on just what free-will is???

-- (:faith01@myway.com"), August 31, 2004.

ROD

>The Apostles were told not to enter certain parts because they would get their carcasses kicked!<

Which only proves my point that God does not make the gospel known to all men... the fact that all men do not hear it is proof.

>Even Christ avoided certain areas.<

This again proves that Christ does not send the message to all people, not because He hates those people and wants to see them burn in hell. It's because it's not in the overall Divine Plan. He leaves them to themselves. Some who did not hear the gospel will be spared on Judgment Day because they obeyed the limited revealed Light they had. If they would have heard the gospel, they would have believed it.

>But, initially, the Gospels were only for the Chosen People--the Jews.<

Gospels? I only know of one Gospel. Maybe you typed incorrectly.

I hope you do not think of it as if God had second thoughts and changed His mind and decided to also include Gentiles. Gentiles were part of the plan from the beginning.

>But, hey! we're in the now and all are offered His Salvation.<

I never said some were not under the GENERAL CALL to repent. I only said that some are not under God's SPECIFIC CALL. Think about it: If God does not relay the Message to a person and that person dies, can you say that God ever called that person? No. He was never specifically called. He never even got the Call. Therefore, God never gave the Call to him. God didn't fail, though. God just let the man die without hearing the Call. It was God's choice to allow that to happen. He is not grieved over the matter as if He failed to save one of His sheep, though.

>I don't know how you would know that God decided not to include that offer to all mankind.<

The offer is for all mankind in general. Anyone in general who WISHES may believe and be saved. Anyone. You can't say I exclude anybody from the GENERAL CALL. Everyone is included under the GENERAL CALL. However, not everyone is included under the SPECIFIC CALL. The fact that not all humans hear the gospel proves God never called them - since they never even heard the Call.

>Of course, you don't understand what Elpidio's church has to do with this. So, take the time to understand what Elpidio is all about before ignoring him.<

I could name a bunch of sects and denominations too. It would make no difference to the discussion at hand. It's not a matter of ignoring "somebody's church" or not taking the time to learn about other people. I spend plenty of time doing that every day.

>We are to eventually become one with God. So, your doctrine doesn't quite jive with the whole Salvation plan.<

Your responses prove you do not even understand my points. Oh well.

>John 3:16 probably reads differently in your Bible and that is why you preach what you do.<

Whosoever wishes to be saved may be saved. I have never denied that. I do deny that every person truly wants to be saved, though. I also deny that God is without the power to create the desire to be saved in a person's heart through directing their life situations. Jesus certainly put St. Paul in a life situation that caused him to realize that he needed to be saved. God can do that to anybody He wants. For some people, God barely allows them to suffer even an ounce of earthly trouble and thus they barely (if ever) have an inclination to seek God's grace.

>Now, come on guy, join the gang and include those poor souls out there who need saving. I'm sure Jesus would appreciate that.<

I'm sure your sarcasm is a personal amusement to yourself, but you obviously do not understand my view. That's fine. Maybe some things I've said will ring true in your mind later as you consider them a little more deeply.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), August 31, 2004.

>Can you site any Scripture that tells us that man is unable to believe unless God first sheds the scales from his eyes?<

An unenlightened man cannot understand spiritual things.

1Cr 2:14 "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

God hides the Truth from the wise and enlightens babes.

Mat 11:25 "At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes."

Certain individuals will never be enlightened by God.

Jud 1:4 "For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ."

>From what I can glean from the Scriptures--faith comes from believing<

Faith and believing are practically synonymous terms. One does not come from the other. They are the same. Faith is a degree of belief. Faith is confident belief.

>I am also thinking of the verses that tell us that man is without excuse because he knows God--because creation itself testifies to Him.<

Yes, God gives the Light to all men, but the final and ultimate revelation of the light is the gospel. God does not send the Ultimate revelation to all men.

>Do you seriously think that all the Old Testament people went to hell because Jesus had not been born yet? <

This board is funny sometimes. Of course "Old Testament people" did not go to hell because they didn't hear about Jesus. They had the light for their age. Some received the revelation of God's grace and some did not.

>I am also thinking of verses where we are told that God does not play favorites. Can you give me any biblical reason why God would not choose to reveal himself to certain individuals over others?<

You're referring to these verses: Act 10:34,35 "Then Peter opened [his] mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him."

It's true. God does not favor individual Jews over individual Gentiles. This was the point of that whole experience Peter had.

It does not mean, however, that God does not reveal himself to certain individuals according to His good pleasure. For God to be a respecter of persons, He would have to consider a man as better than another because of something the man has within. On the contrary, God chooses certain men without respect for what they have within. God chose St. Paul despite the fact that Paul was killing Christians left and right. THAT, my friend, is the best example of God being no respecter of persons. God chose Paul according to His own will, not based on Paul's will or any righteousness Paul had or faith Paul had. God is no respecter of persons. This only backs my point.

>But can you prove that he has done that? <

St. Paul.

>Can you prove that His mercy is not big enough to extend to all--<

I believe His mercy is big enough to save the entire world if that's the way He wanted it to work out. Christ's blood is sufficient enough to buy the souls of all humans an infinite number of times. He already bought all humans and has enough atoning value left in His blood to redeem us all over again billions of times. My beliefs are not what you think.

>God has determined some to go to hell?<

God has determined to condemn certain men. For instance, the Anti- Christ. He is already written about in the Bible. It's determined. The Anti-Christ certainly has the choice to repent, but God will not put the desire to repent in his heart in order that His overall Divine Plan will work out for the glory of His Son and the Saints.

God will never allow some to see the light. These people will never have the desire to be saved. The call to repentance is offered to them, but they will not heed it because they wish to remain where they are - in the dark. God can and does deliver some from darkness, but not all. St. Paul is a perfect example of a man living in darkness and God piercing his world with literal light in order to knock him out of his self-deception. God does not knock everyone out of their self-deception. It's His choice. Thankfully, He was gracious enough to knock us out of our self-deception and shed the light of His Son on our souls.

> Give me one verse where God sends someone to hell for no apparent fault of that person<

Everyone who ends up in hell will be there because of their sin - because their sin is guilty of the blood of Jesus Christ and they refused to seek God's grace against the light of their conscience and the words of the prophets of the age or location they lived.

It's definitely not for "no apparent fault" of the person. Each person lives in self-deception until God brings them to a point of revelation. God is not required to bring all to the point of revelation.

>This of course is very Calvinistic and definately puts a big question mark on just what free-will is??? <

Yes, free will is not an easy topic to discuss. Whatever your belief on the subject, you must not boast in your ability to have faith. Even faith is a gift from God. We ought to humble ourselves in gratitude that He has not only let us hear the Call of the Gospel, but that He did not let us die in our self-deception, but He awoke us by our life situations and experiences and most especially by revealing the Truth of the Word to our hearts.

Matt 16:17 "flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven."

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), August 31, 2004.

You have a mean nature in your posts, Max.

"I'm sure your sarcasm is a personal amusement to yourself, but you obviously do not understand my view. That's fine. Maybe some things I've said will ring true in your mind later as you consider them a little more deeply. "

You are rather arrogant , too. I do understand your view. You have it wrong; I do not accept your view. There is a difference. And, maybe some things I've said will ring true in your mind later as you consider them a little more deeply, Max. The shoes feel funny when on the other foot, yes? Sarcasm? Me? Huh?

Come on, guy! Lighten up. It's ok to be a little confused' we're all human.

.........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 31, 2004.

oops... they better shut off.

........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 31, 2004.

rod,

Perhaps it would be better for you to re-read these posts later.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 31, 2004.

Now, before David starts blaming me. Max did make the "sarcasm" tag on me. That wasn't a sarcastic remark on my part, but "oh well" Max calls it as such. And, I went ahead and replied to Max's humorous assertions towards me with his very own punch line. It is amusing for right now, but let's see if things clean up some.

.........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 31, 2004.

Max--

Just at a first quick glance., I can see that nothing in the first two verses you provide--says anything about God having to regenerate us in order that we become believers and thus understand in the spirit--rather than following the lusts of the flesh. Those verses merely say that unless you are a believer--you cannot discern the things of God. The wise are those who *think* they are smarter than God--this puts them in the unbelieving category. It reminds me of that verse that says that God confounds the wisdom of the wise--with the cross.

1Cr 2:14 "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

Mat 11:25 "At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes."

Babes are those whom are born again--renewed....by their faith.

Gotta run.., ,but will respond to the rest later : )

-- ("faith01@myway.com), August 31, 2004.

And Max--real quick., I noticed that you claim that faith is a gift from God.

I think that salvation is the gift from God.

Reread your verse with that in mind--you'll see what I mean.

It says something to the effect that salvation is by faith--and this [salvation]., is not of ourselves, but it is the gift of God.

-- ("faith01@myway.com), August 31, 2004.

Whatever it is Faith01, it's not of yourselves. Faith? Slavation? Both?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 31, 2004.

When I read that verse--I take it to mean that salvation is not of ourselves. And of course--we can confirm that with other Scripture that says that Jesus Christ is God's gift to us....He gave His only begotten Son--that whosoever will believe--has eternal life.

You can call me Faith, David--the 01 is part of my email., only because *faith* alone was already taken.

-- ("faith01@myway.com), August 31, 2004.

Yes, well, if I am mentioning "Faith" and the poster "Faith", I'd like to make a distinction as to not confuse people.

So, salvation is not of yourselves, but you have to do something to merit it?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 31, 2004.

No--there is no way to merit salvation through any work--except one thing....

Jesus says that the *work* of God is to "believe" in the One He has sent.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 31, 2004.

Belief is not a work of man, it is the work of God.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 31, 2004.

What does a man have to do to believe? Nothing? How is that possible?

What does a man have to do to even begin? Nothing? Ok, suddenly one day the man's life turns into hell. Then he starts to do things in his life to turn things around. What should he do?

Did God suddenly send suffering down to this man, who we can identify with Job?

Is that what you've been saying, Max and David?

.........................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 31, 2004.

Jesus says:

Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. On him God the Father has placed his seal of approval." Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?" Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."

It's all about believing that Jesus Christ has died and is risen.., and that he paid for your sin with his life. Trust Him when he says that you too can rise and see life--just like Him. And you will be saved. This is the gospel message--and by hearing it--we believe and our faith is in Him. Then Jesus sends His Holy Spirit on you.., and you are baptized....born again by the washing of the Word....then you are able to discern the things of God.., and live to follow Him.

Jesus died for us all--and we are all invited into His Kingdom. By faith in Him--we are saved...and this salvation is not of us--it is a gift from God--accomplished not by anything we do--but what Christ did at Calvary...Believe and be baptised and you will see eternal life...

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 31, 2004.

>You have a mean nature in your posts, Max.<

I said: "I'm sure your sarcasm is a personal amusement to yourself, but you obviously do not understand my view. That's fine. Maybe some things I've said will ring true in your mind later as you consider them a little more deeply. "

You're right. I'm one horribly mean person... Wow. That's mean natured to the core.

>You are rather arrogant , too. I do understand your view.<

Your post showed you didn't understand what I said. It's difficult to discuss an issue with a person who misses the point and starts responding to a postition that I don't even hold.

>Come on, guy! Lighten up. It's ok to be a little confused' we're all human.<

Rod, if I make a claim on this board and you want to counter it, that's great, I invite it, but please be ready for a reply. And, if you counter a claim I make, be sure you truly understand what I'm saying or I'll point out the fact that you missed the point. I'm sorry if pointing out such things seems mean to you or tests you sensibilities.

Best wishes!

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), September 01, 2004.

faith,

I agree that our faith gains salvation in a certain way, as Jesus said, "Your faith has saved you."

However, you cannot discount the fact that God has the power to bring situations and instruments such as the Word into a person's life which cause them to seek His grace.

The Word is the sword of the Spirit. Wherever the Word exists, the Spirit is there weilding it. If the Word creates faith, it is the Spirit who gets the credit.

God can bring specific situations into a person's life and not bring such situations into another person's life. That's His choice. St. Paul likely would never have believed if God did not literally knock him off his high horse and put him into a position that made him seek God's grace.

If God has the power to shepherd particular individuals unto faith, then you cannot avoid giving God credit for bringing the person to faith.

Yes, the faith belongs to the person, but God brings a person to faith by His Will, ultimately through enlightening their mind to the meaning of the Gospel so that faith is born.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), September 01, 2004.

Rod, I think what you wrote to Max explains my whole theology about Yahweh's plan of salvation.

If he didn't care, why send prophets (Moses, Samuel, Nathan, Eliajah, Elish,Isaiah, Jeremiah,....John the Baptist, ...), why send Jesus, why send Paul, if he doesn't care for humanity?

Max? If God chooses not to bring particular souls to Him, this may be the justification that Satan worshippers need for their motives. Why should one have faith in a god who does not have faith in them? God wants all men to enter The Kingdom of God. BTW, this is exactly what Elpidio has been preaching. Elpidio's church will include all those dislocated souls, at least that's what I understand about Elpidio. ......... (8/30/04)

As Isaiah 65 states: I was ready to be siught by those who did not ask for me;I was ready to be found by those who did not seek me. I said, "here I am, here I am," to a nation who did not call on my name. 2)I spread out my hands all day to a rebellious people who walk in a way that is not good, following their own devices (Revised Standard Version).

The Christian Yahwist

The Man of Yahweh

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), September 01, 2004.

Ian, your question drops dead in Hebrew and Aramaic. There is no AM ,IS ,or ARE in the present. There is future and past for the verb to be. God says Ani Yahweh ( I am Yahweh) in Hebrew.

Elpidio, a multiple choice question. at the Last Supper, did Our Lord say

1 "do this in memory of Me" OR 2 "do something like this in memory of Me, but change the bits you don't fancy" OR 3 "don't do this in memory of Me"

so were a priest to attempt to Consecrate a Big Mac and a Coke, or a Chicken Vindaloo and a Beer, at Mass, would that be following the Bible?

that sounds ridiculous, i know, but it's what you are arguing, isn't it?

-- Ian (ib@ertifgo.com), August 26, 2004.

We know from I Corinthians that in his last Supper (Passover) Jesus used bread and wine. See I corinthians 11:24.

Yet, Ian , there was another passover meal according to John 6:4 when Jesus consecrated not only bread but fish. The bread was of barley John 6:13. Jesus then goes into this long discourse about this bread ( barley bread and fish)in John 6:27-63.

That is why I cannot be as legalistic as others.

What will Jesus do in the case of this girl? After all he said let the children come to me.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), September 01, 2004.

David, unlike previous posters, James apologized for what he did.

I believe he should be banned for a week or 2, then re-instated.

I apologize, I accept my banning. Thank you for responding. God Bless.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), August 29, 2004.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), September 01, 2004.

"I believe he should be banned for a week or 2, then re-instated."

Not while I'm here. This was not some isolated incident. He was already on the pending list.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), September 01, 2004.

Why does Max do that? Why not just say that I am stupid and be done with it? If we disagree with Max it is because we are dense, is that it Max?

You have an intellectual way of being insulting to me. Tell what we should do with adult people of a 6th grade mentallity seeking God? "Sorry, you ain't smart enough; go away."???

If Max continues with his rudeness, somebody is gonna have to sit in the corner.

......................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 02, 2004.

Max what does the following mean to you and your doctrine?

rod: We cannot base our faith on the confidence that something is evident. "Blessed are they who have not seen, yet they do believe."

......................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 02, 2004.

Elpidio,

Ian, your question drops dead in Hebrew and Aramaic. There is no AM ,IS ,or ARE in the present. There is future and past for the verb to be. God says Ani Yahweh ( I am Yahweh) in Hebrew.

How did the Hebrews then understand the meaning that we take in English as "is", "am" and "are"?

The New Testament is written in Greek as far as I know. Yet, it quotes Jesus as saying "you are the salt of the earth", and "your heavenly Father is perfect", and "I am the true vine: and my Father is the husbandman."

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), September 02, 2004.

Elpidio

Will you have the power to un-ban people?

....................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 02, 2004.

Elpidio, I sent you an email.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), September 02, 2004.

andy, eimi in Greek is am. is is estin, ... but in Hebrew is understood for the present.

Something else, The Greek Septuagint in the Old Testament(Hebrew Tanach) uses ego eimi ho on ( I am who is) for Hebrew eheyeh . The New Testament uses ego eimi in John, but uses eimi ho on in Revelation. So I know Revelation is talking about God Yahweh. John is not.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), September 02, 2004.

Thanks Elpidio.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), September 02, 2004.

>Why does Max do that? Why not just say that I am stupid and be done with it? If we disagree with Max it is because we are dense, is that it Max?<

You can disagree with a position I don't even hold all you want. That's totally up to you. Have fun... but expect a response if you counter my claim - and especially expect correction if you think you're countering my claim, but your words show you don't even understand my claim from the start.

>You have an intellectual way of being insulting to me. Tell what we should do with adult people of a 6th grade mentallity seeking God? "Sorry, you ain't smart enough; go away."???<

There's a difference between seeking God with an open attitude and challenging (with a tone of condescending sarcasm) a position which isn't even held by the other person. Even a 6th grader knows that... ;)

>If Max continues with his rudeness, somebody is gonna have to sit in the corner.<

So far you've said I'm mean, arrogant, rude... want to keep adding to the list? That's one great way to avoid the topic.

Actually, this thread was going way off topic "IS RICE ACCEPTABLE IN COMMUNION?" anyway...

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), September 03, 2004.

Max. You have managed to answer particular items, yet you have failed to answer my repetative question. Why?

Max what does the following mean to you and your doctrine?

rod: We cannot base our faith on the confidence that something is evident. "Blessed are they who have not seen, yet they do believe."

I sense that you either choose not to answer or you don't understand this doctrine. Will you answer? I think that even a 6th grader would give some kind of answer, yes?

......................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 03, 2004.

Yes Max, you are one horrible mean dude ;) I am one too, but worst- I have admin powers. I'm the mean nasty forum dictator who bans people left and right-well, so they say...

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), September 03, 2004.

"Blessed are they who have not seen, yet they do believe."

.............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 03, 2004.

Hmm......count the number of people who question your administrative decision to ban James on one hand. Then, count the number of people who have expressed their 100% agreement that you have done the correct thing, in your administrative position.

In other words, don't single me out just because I'm the loudest of the bunch, David.

..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 03, 2004.

Max..,

There are no examples in Scriptures where God wills anyone to Hell. There are no examples where God withholds his grace and mercy from anyone who truly seeks it.

He draws all men unto Himself by way of the cross.

He works all things out for the good of those who believe in Him and all are invited.

I do not believe that God chooses to neglect anyone. I know that he could--but I see no evidence that He does. We harden our own hearts., and God has used a few people like that to further his plan. But He never simply takes a soul and condemns it out of any will of His own. He wills that none should perish and that all should come to a saving faith in His Son.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 03, 2004.

rod..,

This verse:

"Blessed are they who have not seen, yet they do believe."

This verse brings to mind my father. As a Catholic--He definately does not understand alot about what God has revealed and what He is doing in His creation. My Dad never opens the Bible. He does not understand about prophecy., he doesn't understand what is meant by rapture., he doesn't understand what is meant by being born-again etc...

Yet--my father does know that Jesus Christ died for His sin--and even though He never seems to *know* anything more.., he has faith.

I think that a man who can have that kind of faith--even when he has seen no biblical evidence and has not understood prophetic fulfillment., is still blessed and will still see eternal life.

My Dad's faith really is blind. I am sure that it was him who pointed me in the right direction when I was little--just by his love and faith in God.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 03, 2004.

This is how I understand faith. We may not be able to see proof or evidence of miracles, doctrine, or theology, but we have faith to believe. And, that is all we need when all else fails, when logic crumbles, when historical facts conflict, when man disputes, and when times of sincere cries for forgiveness seem so distant and hopeless, we don't rely on the institution; we rely in faith in Christ, in God, in His offer of Salvation.

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 03, 2004.

Happy is the man who has lived the pure life of a Catholic, who never opposed his Church, who never questioned his doubt. Happy is the man who can call himself a Catholic and walk the narrow path of righteousness before his God given Church. Happy is the man whose sins have been absolved as he remains with the flock in security and grace. Happy is the man whose life has been kind with subtle temptations and resolvable dilemas. Happy is he when his free will can extend only within those orthodox limits. Happy are they who can stand tall and say they are Catholic. Happier are they that the Church calls "Catholic".

As for me? My faith is in God's Divine Mercy. Surely, He will understand.

..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 03, 2004.

>I sense that you either choose not to answer or you don't understand this doctrine. <

I hope you don't rely your senses too much. I saw your post last night, but it was 2am and I am in college. I don't have lots of time to hang out on this message board.

>I think that even a 6th grader would give some kind of answer, yes?<

I have no idea what this means except that it seems you are taunting, rod.

>Max what does the following mean to you and your doctrine?

rod: We cannot base our faith on the confidence that something is evident. "Blessed are they who have not seen, yet they do believe."<

Those who believe without a huge amount of evidence are indeed blessed by God's provision of grace. Some require strong evidence or "kick" in order to be persuaded (for example St. Paul and St. Thomas.) Others require little to no evidence, just the word of a trustworthy witness (for example a child.)

>We cannot base our faith on the confidence that something is evident. <

Again, you do not base faith on confidence. Faith IS confidence. And faith comes from evidence. The Bereans searched the WITNESS of the scriptures in order to see whether the gospel was true. Thomas would not believe until he saw the body of Christ for himself. (Christ was gracious enough to appear to him.)

When a child believes his parents when they tell him about Jesus, he is basing his faith on the evidence of personal witness. The child believes his parents are trustworthy witnesses of the Truth.

When St. Paul would travel around the world preaching the gospel, signs would follow that confirmed that what he was preaching was from God.

Rom 15:19 "Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ."

This was EVIDENCE given by God to confirm Paul's message to those he preached to.

True miracles and signs are EVIDENCES that support and back the personal witness of the one preaching.

1Th 1:5 "For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance..."

>We cannot base our faith on the confidence that something is evident.<

I disagree.

Paul did not just show up on the pagans' doorsteps and tell people the gospel without any evidence of God to back him up.

Rom 15:19 "Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ."

1Cr 2:4 "And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power."

Some of us can believe based simply on a friend's or our parents' testimony and we feel no need to make sure that what they are saying is the Truth. The feeling inside confirms it's true.

Others, such as those pagans and heathens who are bound up in the practices of superstition amd darkness need a demonstration of power to show that the Lord Jesus Christ is the One with the true power in the Universe. God grants some people such EVIDENCE.

But, we must accept that God does not grant such powerful evidence to all. We cannot accuse God of unfairness in light of this undeniable fact. It's His Divine Plan to reveal His ultimate Truth to some and let others live in rejection of even the lesser Light given to them.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), September 03, 2004.

Your faith system is based on relativism, Max. No, I didn't taunt you; I got you to respond to my posts.

"I hope you don't rely your senses too much. "-Max
Well, should it be your intuition and gut feelings? I think that our senses are there for rely on, if not, it would be a case of the blind leading the blind. And, that is sense-less.

..........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 03, 2004.

"It's His Divine Plan to reveal His ultimate Truth to some and let others live in rejection of even the lesser Light given to them. "

Are you of the belief that Christ was Sacrificed only for God's chosen people?

Or-

Are you of the belief that because God has given us free will, some will reject what God has offered them?

Are you able to understand my questions, or should I reduce the convuluted-ness of the thought?

(Cause you will come back at me saying that I'm changing the subject or I'm not understanding something. Or, worse yet, you probably believe that God has chosen not to give me any "light".)

.........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 03, 2004.

>There are no examples in Scriptures where God wills anyone to Hell.<

I never said that. God wills only for the completion of His Divine Plan. That Divine Plan centers upon the salvation of certain individuals. The rest who are not saved are of no consequence. They'll be burned up like chaff and it'll be as if they never existed. God doesn't seek to damn them. He just doesn't seek to reveal Himself to them as earnestly as He does His elect seed.

>There are no examples where God withholds his grace and mercy from anyone who truly seeks it.<

I agree. EVERYONE who truly seeks God's grace will find it. ABSOLUTELY everyone who seeks it will find it. I'll say it again so you can't doubt my position. EVERY SINGLE SOUL who truly seeks the Lord will find Him. There is 100% no exception to this rule.

But not all seek God. Not all are put in special situations that cause them to seek God. God allows some people to go their own way. You are a defender of free will? Me too. But, for those who are God's elect, you must realize that He specially shepherds them to Himself by whatever means necessary. This is not a violation of free will. This is God as the great Shepherd of our souls. The Great Shepherd is great. He will not lose one of His sheep. To suggest that God will fail to save one of His sheep is to say He is not as Great of a Shepherd as He could be if man would cooperate. The great thing about our Shepherd, He's able to persuade and influence His sheep to cooperate.

>He draws all men unto Himself by way of the cross.<

Yes, Christ purchased all men. But, not all men will hear the Call.

>He works all things out for the good of those who believe in Him and all are invited.<

Not all receive the Invitation. The content of the Invitation is open to all, but God does not deliver the Invitation to all. It's just a fact. Some people die without hearing the Invitation. It's not an accident of God. It's part of His Divine Plan. If a person who does not hear the Invitation, but trusts in the Creator's grace, he will be saved, because he would have believed the Message if he'd heard it.

>I do not believe that God chooses to neglect anyone.<

God doesn't neglect anyone. He just doesn't attend to all to the same degree.

>I know that he could--but I see no evidence that He does.<

God does not give everyone a blinding light from heaven experience or heal everybody. That's evidence enough it would seem.

>But He never simply takes a soul and condemns it out of any will of His own.<

Right. The soul is condemned already unless it chooses to not have faith. God chooses to bring and keep some in faith and lets others go their own way without His shepherding by the Word and special experiences.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), September 03, 2004.

God does not give everyone a blinding light from heaven experience or heal everybody. That's evidence enough it would seem.

God doesn't neglect anyone. He just doesn't attend to all to the same degree.

The content of the Invitation is open to all, but God does not deliver the Invitation to all.

Well, then where is that evidence that the faith is built upon when it is not given?

This little part right here, Max, sounds like heresy:

"God does not deliver the Invitation to all. " I think a line might be forming by believers who reject such an idea of God not inviting all to His kingdom. Why would you say such a thing? (Uh, that's the arrogance I mentioned earlier. It's fine for you to be arrogant. I'm just trying to point out one of your human qualities....uh, flaws.)

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 03, 2004.

This-"Right. The soul is condemned already unless it chooses to not have faith. God chooses to bring and keep some in faith and lets others go their own way without His shepherding by the Word and special experiences. "

also seems to go against David's "Grace" doctrines. It has been well preached that once a person has faith, he will have eternal security; God will never let go of such a person. You say otherwise. So, which is it. Does faith secure one's Salvation?

But, you are preaching that their is a specific faith that God will accept or not. We don't exactly know for sure which faith it is because God has decided not to reveal the complete degree of truth to His chosen or unchosen people.

............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 03, 2004.

John the Baptist yelled, "Repent! the Kingdom of God is near!".

...............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 03, 2004.

I just got back from class. Looks like lots of responses since I left... but they're mostly from Rod.

>Your faith system is based on relativism, Max.<

Please provide some set of reasons why you believe this. Thanks!

>No, I didn't taunt you; I got you to respond to my posts.<

You feel you got me to respond. That's fine. I've already explained why it took me over 12 hours to respond, but again, you either do not read my posts clearly or you just like to ignore the things I say, which honestly makes for a very lame discussion, no offense.

>"I hope you don't rely your senses too much. "-Max Well, should it be your intuition and gut feelings? I think that our senses are there for rely on, if not, it would be a case of the blind leading the blind. And, that is sense-less.<

The reason I said that is because you set up an either/or conclusion based on my delay in responding to one of your posts. Your "senses" told you it was either reason A or reason B. My response back was that your "senses" told you wrong and maybe you should consider there was a reason C that your unreliable "senses" never even considered.

>I think that our senses are there for rely on<

Sure... but you also must not draw conclusons based on limited information.

Allow me to me draw a quick conclusion about you personally based on limited information....

From your posts, it appears you frequently misjudge people because you do not take enough time to clearly investigate very far before you draw a conclusion.

Am I wrong? Could be. I'll suspend judgment because there may be a reason "C" that I'm not considering in your particular case. ;)

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), September 03, 2004.

>Are you of the belief that Christ was Sacrificed only for God's chosen people?<

I'll repeat myself I guess: Christ died and bought the entire world of mankind. His blood purchased every sinful soul that has ever existed. His shed blood not only purchased every human soul, but the entire Universe.

>Or<

I love it when you set up your either/or stuff. BTW, my position has been clearly expressed already in this thread... which would answer your questions if you'd read them more clearly... but anyway...

>Are you of the belief that because God has given us free will, some will reject what God has offered them?<

Yes. Some will reject the gift of grace according to their own free will. God doesn't force anyone to reject the Light.

>Are you able to understand my questions, or should I reduce the convuluted-ness of the thought?<

I hope my answers show that I understood your questions clearly.

>you probably believe that God has chosen not to give me any "light")<

God gives everyone Light. He does not, however, give everyone the same measure of Light.

I would never claim that you are not one of God's elect whose name was written in the Lamb's book of Life before the world began - whom God directed in the course of your life in order to bring you to the point of faith.

I may, however, claim that you don't yet know about your own eternal election - that you were chosen by God before the world to come to faith in order to fulfill a part of God's Divine Plan.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), September 03, 2004.

>Well, then where is that evidence that the faith is built upon when it is not given?<

There is no faith without a certain level of evidence. A person you consider to be a reliable witness of truth is a good enough evidence for you. Or, perhaps the evidence of the Holy Spirit speaking to your heart confirms the Word.

>This little part right here, Max, sounds like heresy: "God does not deliver the Invitation to all."<

You must face this fact, Rod: Not everybody hears the Invitation. Therefore, God never got the Invitation to them. Therefore, "God does not deliver the Invitation to all." is not a heresy.

The Invitation is for all whom the Lord God will Call, but the Lord God does not deliver the Call to all. The evidence for this is in the fact that not all hear the gospel before they die.

> think a line might be forming by believers who reject such an idea of God not inviting all to His kingdom.<

I never said God didn't have a General Invitation for all humans. I only said that God does not DELIVER this Invitation to all humans. There's a difference there.

>Why would you say such a thing?<

I said what I said, but I think you missed the word DELIVER. God doesn't DELIVER the Invitation to every single human. Again, this is proved by the fact that some humans die without ever hearing it.

>Uh, that's the arrogance I mentioned earlier. It's fine for you to be arrogant. I'm just trying to point out one of your human qualities....uh, flaws.<

Uh, I have no idea what you're saying. You're saying I'm arrogant based on a quote of mine you obviously misinterpreted again?

oky doky.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), September 03, 2004.

>This-"Right. The soul is condemned already [when] it chooses to not have faith. God chooses to bring and keep some in faith and lets others go their own way without His shepherding by the Word and special experiences. " also seems to go against David's "Grace" doctrines. <

David's "grace" doctrines? Who's David? The moderator? Since when are we discussing David? Weird....

>It has been well preached that once a person has faith, he will have eternal security; God will never let go of such a person. You say otherwise.<

A person who has faith and is one of the elect will persevere until the end. There are some who have "faith" in the gospel, but it does not reach to their soul. These sorts lose their "faith" and were never one of the elect to begin with. These are the type of people who join the church because it's the popular thing to do, because they like the music, like tradition, think it helps politically, etc. They have no roots to their faith. It's not genuine and not cultivated by God.

>So, which is it. Does faith secure one's Salvation?<

Yes. As long as you have faith, you are secure. The elect will seek to make their CALLING (God's personal call to you) and ELECTION (God's eternal decision to save you) sure. That is, a person who is elect of God will persevere in faith and genuine good works that are not done to earn salvation, but are done out of gratitude for God's grace. This is how one knows they are one of God's elect from eternity. Over time, your CALLING and ELECTION of God becomes more clear and you become more and more sure of it.

>But, you are preaching that their is a specific faith that God will accept or not. We don't exactly know for sure which faith it is because God has decided not to reveal the complete degree of truth to His chosen or unchosen people.<

I wish I could decipher what you just said. Sorry. I don't even want to begin guessing. If you want to clarify, that might help.

>John the Baptist yelled, "Repent! the Kingdom of God is near!"<

That's what the Bible says. Was that something you wanted me to comment on or was it a random quote?

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), September 03, 2004.

You are also not very friendly; let me add that too. Everything has to be exactly worded before you entertain a good ol friendly response, Max.

I think the problem is that you have your doctrine firmly implanted in your mind, but the semantics are not quite willing to reveal what is there. For example, you say that God does not "deliver". When in reality, God does deliver; it is man who doesn't grasp. That's the turn off in your way of putting things. Also, your Calvinistic tone kind of gets in the smear of things in relation to my Catholic tones. Plus, you are not easy to warm up to. That makes things even tougher. You might want to re-read those comments that confuse you. I guess you are pressed for time, with college and all, to take the time to "decipher" what I said. But, let me say again. I understand what you say, even if you think that I don't. Oh, and just because I present an "either/or" kind of request doesn't mean that you have to limit your answers to them. I ask my questions a particular way so as I can get to your place in all of this mess called "doctrine".

But, come on and admit it. You are arrogant just as much as I am a real pain in the........neck. I really wish you would lighten up with me and just humor me without the higher status you shadow over my posts. I think we all pull our pants up the same way, yes?

........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 03, 2004.

David's "grace" doctrines? Who's David? The moderator? Since when are we discussing David? Weird....

We are not discussing David; we are discussing doctrines. Uh....David isn't exactly "weird". Is he?

I mentioned his "grace" doctrines in relation to your doctrine for comparison and contrast. Hello. Evidently, you both kind of share the same ideas as far as eternal security goes. Must I explain everything? Anyway, that's why I mention things that seem so bizzarre. You see. I think that most everything is connect to the other, eventually. Eclectic. My thoughts--uh, senses--proved (there's that word again) to be correct. That's what David has to do with this, the moderator David.

..........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 03, 2004.

Random? I don't believe in randome anything, sorry.

John the Baptist yelled, "Repent! the Kingdom of God is near!"

I view John's work to be the work of God. This is how all men were "invited" or initiated or converted into the Kingdom of God. Those who accepted Baptism had the offer; those who rejected were lost. It came down to accept or reject. God "delivers"; man chooses. Free will and all that.....

...............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 03, 2004.

I just got back from class. Looks like lots of responses since I left... but they're mostly from Rod. -Max.

Sorry, I did ask if I could change my handle. Would that work better?

I do have some posts in white colored fonts. They are there like easter eggs. I'm surprised David never found them. Well, enough is enough. I'll be taking a break from this forum for awhile. I need to find out what became of the Judaic religion and poor Bruno. I finally have my own personal copy of The Works of Josephus, Elpidio. There way too many books and not enough lifetime to read them all.

Later.......

I'll pray for you, Max. I think that in time we'll become very good online friends. We might tip some cows or install hydraulics in my truck.

................................... ...............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 03, 2004.

I'm also gonna write the authorities about the words there, their, and they're. I know how to use them, but my typing seems to be defective. Maybe, I should use thair and you all decide how I'm using dem.

..................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 03, 2004.

w00t! Go Patriots! :D

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), September 03, 2004.

>You are also not very friendly; let me add that too.<

Lots of people would disagree.

>Everything has to be exactly worded before you entertain a good ol friendly response, Max.<

We are using a medium of words. That's all we have. If you can't properly word your response, then what? Am I supposed to guess what you really mean? If you don't respond to my actual position, but instead imagine a new position that I don't hold, am I supposed to switch my position to the one you think I'm conveying?

Nah. All I've done is tell you that you do not read my posts clearly enough and I simply correct your view of what I've said. Some people take that as an insult, I understand. I do not mean to insult your intelligence. I only want you to stop misrepresenting what I've said.

>I think the problem is that you have your doctrine firmly implanted in your mind, but the semantics are not quite willing to reveal what is there.<

I think if you read my posts, I'm pretty clear on what I say. No semantic mysteries.

>For example, you say that God does not "deliver". When in reality, God does deliver<

There you go again... I said, God does not DELIVER the message to every individual. Here... lemme give you some synonyms so the meaning is more clear in your mind.

God does not deliver, bear, bring, carry, convey, distribute, drop, give, hand, pass, or transport the gospel to every individual human being. Some die and never hear it.

What I said was clear. Your representation of what I said infers that God does not deliver at all...

>For example, you say that God does not "deliver". When in reality, God does deliver<

That's a direct misrepresentation of what I clearly said. Oh well... I think you get the meaning by now.

>Also, your Calvinistic tone kind of gets in the smear of things in relation to my Catholic tones.<

Holding to predestination does not make me a Calvinist. Also, I believe you may be projecting a tone onto my words based on previous arguments you may have had over simliar issues with Calvinists. I'm not a Calvinist. Sorry.

>Plus, you are not easy to warm up to. That makes things even tougher.<

I notice that most of what you say has nothing to do with the topic we're discussing. You'd go far in "warming up" if you'd actually discuss the topic and not get offended everytime I try to help you understand my view better.

>You might want to re-read those comments that confuse you. I guess you are pressed for time, with college and all, to take the time to "decipher" what I said.<

I've gotten most of what you said. One of those badly written paragraphs was totally not worth the time to try and decipher. Sorry.

>But, let me say again. I understand what you say, even if you think that I don't. <

Your responses prove you don't. When you misrepresent what I've just said, it proves you didn't get it the first time.

>Oh, and just because I present an "either/or" kind of request doesn't mean that you have to limit your answers to them.<

Of course. I just have to point out to you that life is not always an A or B situation. Usually there is a C that is not being considered. Close-minded people live by A or B and make no room for C.

>But, come on and admit it. You are arrogant just as much as I am a real pain in the........neck.<

Sometimes people think that a person who is sure of what he believes is arrogant. Kings have put to death Christians because they think they are arrogant when really they simply hold their position with conviction.

A week ago, a very attractive girl I know commented on how much I lack an ego compared to most other guys she knows. Now here I am stuck inbetween the negative picture Rod has of me, though he's never met me, and the positive picture Emily has of me, who has known me well for over 2 years. Hmmm... who do I believe? I guess I'll never know which it is...

>I really wish you would lighten up with me and just humor me without the higher status you shadow over my posts.<

If you want to offer a challenge to what I say on this discussion board, be ready for a response. Be ready for me to correct you if you misrepresent what I've said. If you want me to just throw the whole discussion in the back seat for the sake of "being nice to Rod," I'm sorry but that's not the reason I post on this board. I post here to express my views, hone my debate skills, and test if my view actually holds up to an honest challenge... HONEST being the operative word there.

>I think we all pull our pants up the same way, yes?<

I honestly could care less how you pull your pants up when we're discussing a topic. ;)

>Uh....David isn't exactly "weird". Is he?<

I'll assume you're just joking on this one Rod and you deliberately misread in order to make a joke.

>I mentioned his "grace" doctrines in relation to your doctrine for comparison and contrast.<

David doesn't do a thing for your position. ;)

>Hello. Evidently, you both kind of share the same ideas as far as eternal security goes. Must I explain everything? Anyway, that's why I mention things that seem so bizzarre. You see. I think that most everything is connect to the other, eventually. Eclectic. My thoughts- -uh, senses--proved (there's that word again) to be correct. That's what David has to do with this, the moderator David.<

Alrighty.

>Random? I don't believe in randome anything, sorry.<

Great! Niether do I. In fact, that's one concept that helps back my view that we are not lucky to have heard the gospel. God DELIVERS it to us indivudally and does not deliver it to other individuals. It's not an accident. Also, our believing is not a lucky thing, but God had a hand in our coming to faith.

God cultivated our life by our experiences, delivered the word to us, opened our heart, and we believed. He continues to water the word, cultivates it, and it produces fruit in our lives. It's not an accident or a random thing that a person enters eternal life.

>I'll pray for you, Max. I think that in time we'll become very good online friends. We might tip some cows or install hydraulics in my truck.<

I've never tipped a cow online. That might be fun. Grab the beer!

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), September 04, 2004.

Hee...heee. I've never installed hydraulics in my truck, nor do I really plan to. That was just a little joking around for engaging in trivial things that don't amount to anything, except fun. Now, people might be wondering about tipping cows. Yes, it is important that rod have some amusement. It sure beats the fighting that's being going on here lately. I like it when we post to real people with real emotions, not only their real views. We can debate without those funky looking judge wigs, too.

I posted just for you. Uh, woman have a way of bringing our charming selves to the fore. Men are generally less alluring towards each other. Ah! but when a woman is around, somebody will eventually sweep up the sugar and spice that hits the floor. Yes, old fashion, sorry.

I'm out of here.

.......................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 04, 2004.

Well I'm glad your reasons for discussing issues has been satisfied, Rod. Please don't take offense when others take discussions regarding truth more seriously than you do.

Oh, and I'll let you go unscathed after calling me all sorts of names for no particular reason. Have fun with the cows. ;)

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), September 05, 2004.

" Please don't take offense when others take discussions regarding truth more seriously than you do. "

You haven't read all of my posts in this here forum and the Catholic forum. I guess your assertion is that you have the truth? Hmm. I thought the Catholic Church was the only one and only true Church given to us by God. You are gonna have a tough fight in your hands when you try and debate your views with them Catholics. Have you made any attempts to post in the Catholic Forum, Max? They take things extremely serious over there.

BTW, when it comes to the truth, I am very serious. When it comes to man-made doctrines, I'll try to process those understandings. If you aren't a Calvinist, yet have Calvinistic tones (that's tones), then what are you?

I've been digging in Scriptures for your assertions that God reveals some degree of truth to some believers. Sorry, I'm having a difficult time making such a connection.

Unscathed? Hey, I'm of the Catholic persuation. I'm used to much more than being scathed. I'm your popular persecuted believer. Not even the Catholic Church can resist persecuting me. I'll explain that one later.

..........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 05, 2004.

Max

Are you of the "Sola Scriptura" faith system? The reason I ask this is because of your assertions that God reveals some degree of truth to some people and , maybe, not to some others. With my discussions with Kevin, and others, it was impressed on me that God reveals all in Scriptures in an unchanging way. There are no mysteries awaiting in the halls for us to one day discover out of our human cognitive evolution (seems like a good word choice). So, when you make that "degree" of truth argument, where does that put "Sola Scriptura", the Holy Scriptures. I figure that one needs to know about truth is in Scriptures and that every man has that freedom to read the Scriptures (I'm still talking about "Sola Scriptura" believers). If God only reveals degrees of truth, does this mean that the Holy Scriptures are lacking in sufficient truth? Does this mean that God's truths can be found elswhere outside of the Scriptures?

If this sounds like I'm trying to box you into a narrow bridge or corner, I'm not.

If you don't understand my post, I'll ask this.

Are Scriptures enough for all men to accept the truth that God gives?

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 05, 2004.

"God cultivated our life by our experiences, delivered the word to us, opened our heart, and we believed. He continues to water the word, cultivates it, and it produces fruit in our lives. It's not an accident or a random thing that a person enters eternal life. -Max."

Now, how does this actually work?

God cultivated our life by our experiences,

--That's provided that we are following in God's light.--

delivered the word to us,

--Do you mean Word as in the Incarnate Word?--

opened our heart, and we believed.

--That is still a problem dealing with "which came first" kind of deal--

He continues to water the word,

--Well, I do believe that God continues to provide His truth throw a changing world. Some will disagree.--

cultivates it, and it produces fruit in our lives.

--I'm still not sure what you mean by that. Unless, you are talking about Man doing works, as God does work through Man. So, it isn't really Man who performed miracles (Apostles, Do Gooders, Evangelists, Priests, Nuns, etc.), but God Who worked through him.--

It's not an accident or a random thing that a person enters eternal life.

--Well, not to God because God sees all; there is no randomness to His will. But, man doesn't see all, so for him, it does appear as being a random thing. But, you and I know better.--

..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 05, 2004.

meat, lecham also means meat.

-- sdfsdfsd (sdfsdfsd@fsdfsdfsd.org), September 08, 2004.

>Now, how does this actually work?

God cultivated our life by our experiences,

--That's provided that we are following in God's light.--<

No, God can bring events in our life, people into our life, etc. Experiences and people shape who we are... or cultivate our hearts.

>delivered the word to us,

--Do you mean Word as in the Incarnate Word?--<

The Gospel.

>opened our heart, and we believed.

--That is still a problem dealing with "which came first" kind of deal--<

Seems pretty clear to me. I think it takes some fiddling with the scripture to come to some other explanation of what "God opened her heart" means. If her heart was closed, she would be an unbeliever. Since her heart was opened, by God, she was a believer.

>He continues to water the word,

--Well, I do believe that God continues to provide His truth throw a changing world. Some will disagree.--<

I meant, God's word in us, as it has taken root, grows and produces fruit. God waters and nourishes that word in us.

>cultivates it, and it produces fruit in our lives.

--I'm still not sure what you mean by that. Unless, you are talking about Man doing works, as God does work through Man. So, it isn't really Man who performed miracles (Apostles, Do Gooders, Evangelists, Priests, Nuns, etc.), but God Who worked through him<

"It is not I who live, but Christ (the Word) who lives in me."

>It's not an accident or a random thing that a person enters eternal life.

--Well, not to God because God sees all; there is no randomness to His will. But, man doesn't see all, so for him, it does appear as being a random thing. But, you and I know better.--<

If it's not random, then it must be under God's control in one way or another - directly or passively. If all things are under control, then most surely our salvation is more than just a matter of chance. Most definitely God has a hand in it from the very start - before we were even born - before our grandparents were even born God planned for us to be here. He brought your grandparents together knowing that would fulfill part of His amazing plan to bring you into the world... who really can fathom how amazing and deep God's ways are in all this? We can't fathom, but we can be confident there is a sure plan being executed - and those of us who believe are beneficiaries of the plan - even heirs of God's Eternal Kingdom.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), September 10, 2004.

I just wanna know one thing...

What's all this got to do with rice?

One of those threads, I guess... ;)

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), September 10, 2004.

Max:"...delivered the word to us,..."

rod:"--Do you mean Word as in the Incarnate Word?--"

Max:"The Gospel."

Well, this is a major difference between our doctrines, Max. Yes, the Gospels are important, but the emphasis, for me, is the faith in Christ. The Word always means Our Saviour. The Scriptures may have truth in them, but they may also be tainted with human error. So, the Bible holds a proper place in my faith. It is not the sole article. "The Bible tells me so" isn't exactly all there is. "God tells me so" is evident (even as you have mentioned) in many things and experiences, not soley the Scriptures.

What does this have to do with rice? Everything.

.....................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 10, 2004.

"If it's not random, then it must be under God's control in one way or another - directly or passively. "

God, Providence.

...............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 10, 2004.

Wheat was the grain, not rice.

...........

-- rod (elrleyrod@yahoo.com), September 10, 2004.

>>>> Max:"...delivered the word to us,..." rod:"--Do you mean Word as in the Incarnate Word?--"

Max:"The Gospel."

Well, this is a major difference between our doctrines, Max. Yes, the Gospels are important, but the emphasis, for me, is the faith in Christ. The Word always means Our Saviour. The Scriptures may have truth in them, but they may also be tainted with human error. So, the Bible holds a proper place in my faith. It is not the sole article. "The Bible tells me so" isn't exactly all there is. "God tells me so" is evident (even as you have mentioned) in many things and experiences, not soley the Scriptures. <<<<

It's interesting that you took one simple phrase of mine and interpreted it to mean something else. I said GOSPEL. I didn't say anything about the SCRIPTURES.

The GOSPEL is the message about Jesus Christ... the Message of Jesus Christ existed before it was ever written down on paper.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), September 10, 2004.

Eat a little bit of wheat, girl. It won't kill you. It'll make you feel physically connected to the rest of Christ's Body as you partake of the physical substance of which Christ's Body was/is composed.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), September 10, 2004.

" The GOSPEL is the message about Jesus Christ... the Message of Jesus Christ existed before it was ever written down on paper. "

Ok, I get your meaning. I do agree with that, Max.

Uh, the "little girl" post looks like a fake. Is that really Max posting or an imposter?

....................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 10, 2004.

It's him.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), September 10, 2004.

It's me.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), September 10, 2004.

It's you.

...............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 10, 2004.