Post Reply
Page 4 of 8  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 8 Next
7 years ago  ::  Jan 20, 2008 - 1:23AM #31
kepercayaan
Posts: 55
[QUOTE=smc93;224544]'"accept the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be, by the Holy Spirit, the unique and authoritative witness to Jesus Christ in the Church universal, and God’s Word to you."'

I sure do, always have.  And the Bible doesn't live in a 1st century vacuum or a 17th century vacuum.  The Councils of the Church 'handle' the Bible and Presbyterian (Oh God, did I just say that!?!) tradition.

I should think some presbyteries, sessions and congregations welcome the movement of the Holy Spirit... just like the primordial chaos did 460 million years ago, i.e., long before any single word of Holy Scripture was ever written.  :-)

.[/QUOTE]
SMC please don't take GOD's name in vain.

I guesse that's the difference between "believer" (he who believes there is a god and a bible) and "true believer" (He who believes in 1 eternal GOD, the FATHER creator of all and of the world in 6 days, the SON deliverer through HIM alone is salvation, and HOLY SPIRIT, counselor given to those whom are written, from before creation, in the book of life. revealed in HIS unfailing word the BIBLE). Many are invited, few are chosen.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jan 21, 2008 - 4:33PM #32
CalKnox
Posts: 330
[QUOTE=AppleMan;223771]Do we really have to have the fundamentalist argument here? Are their really 5 things you have to believe to get into heaven? And aren't there enough places on Beliefnet to rehash this argument?

It is quite true that fundamentalism started in the Presbyterian Church back in the 20's, but most of us have moved on.[/QUOTE]

If "Fundamentalism" means taking oaths and making promises in the plain and common sense of the words, without equivocation or mental reservation, I'll proudly be identified as one.

Personally, I call it honesty and integrity, which is the least oen should expect of a Presbyterian church officer.

Do you accept the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be, by the Holy Spirit, the unique and authoritative witness to Jesus Christ in the Church universal, and God’s Word to you?

If not, you should confess it to your congregation and ordaining judicatory.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jan 21, 2008 - 5:21PM #33
AppleMan
Posts: 348
Hi Cal, since you asked, I can enthusiastically support the statements on the Bible from the Confession of 1967:

The one sufficient revelation of God is Jesus Christ, the Word of God incarnate, to whom the Holy Spirit bears unique and authoritative witness through the Holy Scriptures, which are received and obeyed as the word of God written. The Scriptures are not a witness among others, but the witness without parallel. The church has received the books of the Old and New Testaments as prophetic and apostolic testimony in which it hears the word of God and by which its faith and obedience are nourished and regulated.

The New Testament is the recorded testimony of apostles to the coming of the Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth, and the sending of the Holy Spirit to the Church. The Old Testament bears witness to God's faithfulness in his covenant with Israel and points the way to the fulfillment of his purpose in Christ. The Old Testament is indispensable to understanding the New, and is not itself fully understood without the New.

The Bible is to be interpreted in the light of its witness to God's work of reconciliation in Christ. The Scriptures, given under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, are nevertheless the words of men, conditioned by the language, thought forms, and literary fashions of the places and times at which they were written. They reflect views of life, history, and the cosmos which were then current. The church, therefore, has an obligation to approach the Scriptures with literary and historical understanding. As God has spoken his word in diverse cultural situations, the church is confident that he will continue to speak through the Scriptures in a changing world and in every form of human culture.

God's word is spoken to his church today where the Scriptures are faithfully preached and attentively read in dependence on the illumination of the Holy Spirit and with readiness to receive their truth and direction.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jan 22, 2008 - 1:50PM #34
sterrettc
Posts: 89
[QUOTE=kepercayaan;226739]SMC please don't take GOD's name in vain.

I guesse that's the difference between "believer" (he who believes there is a god and a bible) and "true believer" (He who believes in 1 eternal GOD, the FATHER creator of all and of the world in 6 days, the SON deliverer through HIM alone is salvation, and HOLY SPIRIT, counselor given to those whom are written, from before creation, in the book of life. revealed in HIS unfailing word the BIBLE). Many are invited, few are chosen.[/QUOTE]

Kepercayaan,

You seem to be implying that the difference between "believer" and "true believer" is the difference between you and smc93.  It is natural to believe that your own beliefs are more true and more correct than those of others (since, after all, if you thought that the other was more true, the other would be your belief).  I would say, however, once you start comparing the measure of your faith to that of others, you are missing the point.  And once you start judging others as untrue believers, you are attempting to usurp God's prerogative.

I would not judge either you or smc93, but at the same time, I have seen nothing that indicates that he has any less faith in the Lord to whom the scriptures bear witness than you do. 

sterrett
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jan 23, 2008 - 2:28AM #35
smc93
Posts: 200
[QUOTE=kepercayaan;226739]SMC please don't take GOD's name in vain.

I guesse that's the difference between "believer" (he who believes there is a god and a bible) and "true believer" (He who believes in 1 eternal GOD, the FATHER creator of all and of the world in 6 days, the SON deliverer through HIM alone is salvation, and HOLY SPIRIT, counselor given to those whom are written, from before creation, in the book of life. revealed in HIS unfailing word the BIBLE). Many are invited, few are chosen.[/QUOTE]


Kep,

You'll have to forgiven my inattention to this forum of late.  And do forgive my humorous (not vain) use of the word 'God' in my post.  Sadly, I think it is you who used the word 'God' vainly or at least strainly.


"and of the world in 6 days"

You sound serious about this.  I'm sorry.  Still angry about the 60s are you?  There is no fight between Science and Faith.  Turn off the projector and that shadow boxing will cease, OK!  ROTFLMGMO.  Many are cold and a few are frozen.

p.s. Don't you find that the use of 'true' as an adjective in the present culture wars between Christians at least tiring!?  Oh lord I do.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jan 23, 2008 - 2:30AM #36
smc93
Posts: 200
[QUOTE=sterrettc;232598]Kepercayaan,

You seem to be implying that the difference between "believer" and "true believer" is the difference between you and smc93.  It is natural to believe that your own beliefs are more true and more correct than those of others (since, after all, if you thought that the other was more true, the other would be your belief).  I would say, however, once you start comparing the measure of your faith to that of others, you are missing the point.  And once you start judging others as untrue believers, you are attempting to usurp God's prerogative.

I would not judge either you or smc93, but at the same time, I have seen nothing that indicates that he has any less faith in the Lord to whom the scriptures bear witness than you do. 

sterrett[/QUOTE]


When I die, I will see that your Session let's you off to do my funeral.  :-)
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jan 24, 2008 - 7:47AM #37
kepercayaan
Posts: 55
[QUOTE=AppleMan;217672]I don't disagree. My point is that we must discern how the Holy Spirit is guiding us, and make sure it is not our own, selfish spirit. In my opinion, the best way we have for doing this is by comparing where the Holy Spirit is leading us to the totality of the God that we encounter in the Bible (not individual proof-texts!).[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=smc93;217691]And neither do I disagree!

I would add that the Councils of the Church help us to encounter the Spirit's leading as well.  The Church Universal, through all the ages, has known something of "the totality of God" such that we may trust Her.  She gave us the Bible in the first place, right!?[/QUOTE]


SMC Do you say here that the we received the bible from the church?
If we question where the bible comes from what can we discusse?
Are we not to belief that when the bible is translated it is also through the work of the Spirit?


[QUOTE=smc93;224544]'"accept the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be, by the Holy Spirit, the unique and authoritative witness to Jesus Christ in the Church universal, and God’s Word to you."'

I sure do, always have.  And the Bible doesn't live in a 1st century vacuum or a 17th century vacuum.  The Councils of the Church 'handle' the Bible and Presbyterian (Oh God, did I just say that!?!) tradition.

I should think some presbyteries, sessions and congregations welcome the movement of the Holy Spirit... just like the primordial chaos did 460 million years ago, i.e., long before any single word of Holy Scripture was ever written.  :-)
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=smc93;234121]Kep,

You'll have to forgiven my inattention to this forum of late.  And do forgive my humorous (not vain) use of the word 'God' in my post.  Sadly, I think it is you who used the word 'God' vainly or at least strainly.


"and of the world in 6 days"

You sound serious about this.  I'm sorry.  Still angry about the 60s are you?  There is no fight between Science and Faith.  Turn off the projector and that shadow boxing will cease, OK!  ROTFLMGMO.  Many are cold and a few are frozen.

p.s. Don't you find that the use of 'true' as an adjective in the present culture wars between Christians at least tiring!?  Oh lord I do.[/QUOTE]


Sorry I didn't see the humor in it.
Forgive me if I used God's name strainly or in vain, I was not aware.


[QUOTE=sterrettc;232598]Kepercayaan,

You seem to be implying that the difference between "believer" and "true believer" is the difference between you and smc93.  It is natural to believe that your own beliefs are more true and more correct than those of others (since, after all, if you thought that the other was more true, the other would be your belief).  I would say, however, once you start comparing the measure of your faith to that of others, you are missing the point.  And once you start judging others as untrue believers, you are attempting to usurp God's prerogative.

I would not judge either you or smc93, but at the same time, I have seen nothing that indicates that he has any less faith in the Lord to whom the scriptures bear witness than you do. 

sterrett[/QUOTE]


Sterrettc / SMC

I can not see in some ones hart, and I don't know SMC, you, Call, or anyone here. I know I may call my self a "true" believer, child of God, covenant child. see Q & A 1-2
I was just trying to make a distinction between I gues "true" believers and "non" believers.
Because many call them self believers, but are believers of good works. And as I said many belief that there is a God, that Jesus died for our sins and that the bible is God's word, But they also belief that they them self have to get there. see q&a 12-15

Question 1:  What is your only comfort in life and in death?
Answer 1:  That I, with body and soul, both in life and in death,[1] am not my own,[2] but belong to my faithful Savior Jesus Christ,[3] who with His precious blood [4] has fully satisfied for all my sins,[5] and redeemed me from all the power of the devil;[6] and so preserves me [7] that without the will of my Father in heaven not a hair can fall from my head;[8] indeed, that all things must work together for my salvation.[9] Wherefore, by His Holy Spirit, He also assures me of eternal life,[10] and makes me heartily willing and ready from now on to live unto Him.[11]

1.  Rom. 14:7-8
2.  I Cor. 6:19
3.  I Cor. 3:23
4.  I Peter 1:18-19
5.  I John 1:7; 2:2
6.  I John 3:8
7.  John 6:39

8.  Matt. 10:29-30; Luke 21:18
9.  Rom. 8:28
10. II Cor. 1:21-22; Eph. 1:13-14; Rom. 8:16
11. Rom. 8:1

Q2:  How many things are necessary for you to know, that in this comfort you may live and die happily?
A2:  Three things:[1] First, the greatness of my sin and misery.[2] Second, how I am redeemed from all my sins and misery.[3] Third, how I am to be thankful to God for such redemption.[4]

1.  Luke 24:46-47; I Cor. 6:11; Titus 3:3-7
2.  John 9:41; 15:22
3.  John 17:3
4.  Eph. 5:8-11; I Peter 2:9-12; Rom. 6:11-14; 7:24-25; Gal. 3:13; Col. 3:17



Q12:  Since, then, by the righteous judgment of God, we deserve temporal and eternal punishment, how may we escape this punishment and be again received into favor?
A12:  God wills that His justice be satisfied;[1] therefore, we must make full satisfaction to that justice, either by ourselves or by another.[2]

1.  Exod. 20:5; 23:7
2.  Rom. 8:3-4

Q13:  Can we ourselves make this satisfaction?
A13:  Certainly not; on the contrary, we daily increase our guilt.[1]

1.  Job 9:2-3; 15:15-16; Matt. 6:12; 16:26

Q14:  Can any mere creature make satisfaction for us?
A14:  None; for first, God will not punish any other creature for the sin which man committed;[1] and further, no mere creature can sustain the burden of God's eternal wrath against sin [2] and redeem others from it.

1.  Heb. 2:14-18
2.  Psa. 130:3

Q15:  What kind of mediator and redeemer, then, must we seek?
A15:  One who is a true [1] and righteous man,[2] and yet more powerful than all creatures, that is, one who is also true God.[3]

1.  I Cor. 15:21-22, 25-26
2.  Jer. 33:16; Isa. 53:11; II Cor. 5:21; Heb. 7:15-16
3.  Isa. 7:14; Heb. 7:26

Seeking what is right, KEPEC
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jan 24, 2008 - 10:59AM #38
smc93
Posts: 200
Hi kepec,

"SMC

1.  Do you say here that the we received the bible from the church?
2.  If we question where the bible comes from what can we discusse?
3.  Are we not to belief that when the bible is translated it is also through the work of the Spirit?"

1a.  Of course!  Who else gave us the Bible?!
2a.  Since we know that the church gave the Bible to the church, we can, as the church, discuss anything!
3a.  Some versions (translations) are markedly better than others.  Are we to say that the Holy Spirit evidently didn't help some translation teams all that well? 

For instance, since we don't live in 17th century Britain, we may not rely upon the out-dated language of the Authorised Version (KJV) of the Bible.  Every translation is an interpretation.  Each one is influenced by the ideology of the team doing the translation, despite their efforts to keep their prejudices at bay.

I quite like the NIV but I know that it has several translation deficiencies; I can easily balance those deficiencies by reading  the NRSV.  However, to hear some conservative evangelical fundamentalist Christians tell it, the NIV is terrible.  And many of them would only 'trust' the KJV, God help us.  (I learned many verses by memory friom the KJV, so I know how to appreciate it... knowing full well that I have to rely upon the RSV or NRSV for English that is understandable.)


Just out of interest, what is the appeal of Q & A 12?

bless,  s
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jan 24, 2008 - 3:30PM #39
sterrettc
Posts: 89
kepercayaan,

I like the Heidelberg Catechism very much, but I am curious that you are quoting it to the exclusion of other confessions.  Usually when more conservative presbyterians quote one Catechism only, (or rather two only), it is the Westminster Shorter and Larger.

sterrett
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Jan 29, 2008 - 5:58PM #40
CalKnox
Posts: 330
[QUOTE=sterrettc;237985]I like the Heidelberg Catechism very much, but I am curious that you are quoting it to the exclusion of other confessions. [/QUOTE]

My guess is that Kepercayaan is from a Continental Reformed church. 

Though our confessional standards are those of Westminster, our congregation has used the Heidelberg for Sabbath school study the last two years.  It has been good to see how a parallel and older theological tradition expressed the same essential biblical truths. 

I have found nothing in the Heidelberg with which I disagree; except I find Q. 103 a little ambiguous in what it doesn’t say about the continuity between the Old Testament Sabbath and the New Testament Lord’s Day.  Westminster does a better job on the 4th Commandment.
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 4 of 8  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 8 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook