culling

UppsalaDragby · Aug 10, 2014

aspen said:
UD you asked me to give you my definition of a fundamentalist. unlike Vale, I believe Fundamentalists can exist in all religions. In Catholicism, it often takes the form of the traditionalist movement - overinterpreting catholic dogma and catholic culture - Mary is a Big deal to fundamentalist catholics. As far as protestant fundamentalists go - they tend to be extremely reductionistic, meaning the do not like church, ritual, or doctrine that develops. They are on a crusade to save Christianity from being watered down. They trust the four spiritual laws and a literal interpretation of the Bible. The only thing that matters is getting people saved - and this is an instantaneous process. Doctrinal purity and protecting the identity of the group comes before the welfare of people, always. Fundamentalists will murder in order to protect identity - muslim terrorists are good examples of this. Pharisees were fundamentalists because identity and purity came before people - That is why the killed Jesus.

Sure... no problem with that... although I would much rather describe it as dogmatism, than fundmentalism. Without googling any definitions.. to me dogmatism is a mentality whereby someone tenaciously insists that their interpretation of scripture, or their worldview, is the only correct interpretation in existance. They firmly entrench themselves in that interpretation without showing any willingness to compromise, or even admit that they could be wrong. Fundamentalism, on the other hand, is simply believing that scripture means what it says "literally", except where the context dicates otherwise.

Of course, there are dogmatic fundamentalists........ just as there are dogmatic liberalists... but that is what discussions like this are all about.

I kind of get the feeling that you think that I am a "dogmatic fundamentalist", but I actually try to avoid asserting things too much. I understand that there are people who disagree with me, and, very importantly, that I could be wrong. But on the other hand I oppose people very strongly when they try to assert things that they have no right in asserting. In most cases I think I use reasoning, rather than assertion, to support what I write in my posts.

For example, if someone insists that the book of Genesis is entirely allegorical then I ask them how the lineage of Jesus given in the gospels is based in fictional characters, .... and other questions like that. If they claim that Genesis is a combination of both literal facts and allegories then I work from there. All we can do is reason with each other. And if someone rejects scripture altogether then there is not much anyone can do...

Tex · Aug 10, 2014

StanJ said:
Actually λόγος (logos) means WORD, not logic. John 1:1-4

Logos means word, yes, but that's not the right connotation. To the larger Roman world, the ability to speak was the sign of rationality. Logos, etymologically speaking, is where English gets the word logic. Logos was first used by pagan Greek philosophers as the divine force that made order from chaos. Also, a connection to the logos made you rational because you could now objectively observe things, including yourself. It allows you to truly understand, and understanding was in words. There was no such thing as "reading inside your head" then. If you understood, you could communicate it. With logos, you can understand and express.

Before John's gospel, that is what logos meant in a religious sense. John takes this sense of the word and uses it as the Psalms speak of Wisdom. He takes a pagan design and uses it for the glory of the Lord. And this is how we should understand He who is Logos. Jesus understands, and communicates to us the glory of the Lord. He is the Logos, and our connection to Him brings faithfulness and through Him we understand the Father in Heaven.

But, we cannot abandon the connotation of wisdom, reason, or logic from the word Logos, even in the Christian sense. John chose the word logos intentionally because of it was already very accurate.

I could totally talk about this in another thread. I love this topic.

This Vale Of Tears · Aug 10, 2014

Tex said:
@Vale

I also thought you were a woman for a while... I read you were a he about a week ago... :unsure:

@StanJ

I'm good. You would learn nothing, so it is of no benefit to anyone. But, for the record, my belief that the universe is 13.6 billion years old does not contradict biblical teaching. I do not deny God's Word, but if you deny logic you deny Logos. They are the same.

Who are you arguing with? And how in Hades did you peg me for a young earth creationist??

aspen said:
UD you asked me to give you my definition of a fundamentalist. unlike Vale, I believe Fundamentalists can exist in all religions. In Catholicism, it often takes the form of the traditionalist movement - overinterpreting catholic dogma and catholic culture - Mary is a Big deal to fundamentalist catholics. As far as protestant fundamentalists go - they tend to be extremely reductionistic, meaning the do not like church, ritual, or doctrine that develops. They are on a crusade to save Christianity from being watered down. They trust the four spiritual laws and a literal interpretation of the Bible. The only thing that matters is getting people saved - and this is an instantaneous process. Doctrinal purity and protecting the identity of the group comes before the welfare of people, always. Fundamentalists will murder in order to protect identity - muslim terrorists are good examples of this. Pharisees were fundamentalists because identity and purity came before people - That is why the killed Jesus.

I agree with a lot of what you're saying here, but you should have said "some" fundamentalists will murder; it certainly doesn't apply to all fundamentalists, and in fact most fundamentalists in any religion believe that murder is "fundamentally" wrong.

I also don't believe that deep devotion to the Blessed Virgin is a mark of fundamentalism though I don't believe that's what you were saying. But just to make a point, we Catholics believe that Mary brings us closer to Jesus, that the Immaculate Heart and the Sacred Heart are near and endeared so that you can't be close to one without being close to the other. Unless Mary is being worshipped as Protestants accuse, devotion to her simply cannot be overdone and doesn't make one a fundamentalist.

But you see the challenge of defining fundamentalism....ask 10 different people and you'll get 10 different responses.

StanJ · Aug 10, 2014

Tex said:
Logos means word, yes, but that's not the right connotation. To the larger Roman world, the ability to speak was the sign of rationality. Logos, etymologically speaking, is where English gets the word logic. Logos was first used by pagan Greek philosophers as the divine force that made order from chaos. Also, a connection to the logos made you rational because you could now objectively observe things, including yourself. It allows you to truly understand, and understanding was in words. There was no such thing as "reading inside your head" then. If you understood, you could communicate it. With logos, you can understand and express.

Before John's gospel, that is what logos meant in a religious sense. John takes this sense of the word and uses it as the Psalms speak of Wisdom. He takes a pagan design and uses it for the glory of the Lord. And this is how we should understand He who is Logos. Jesus understands, and communicates to us the glory of the Lord. He is the Logos, and our connection to Him brings faithfulness and through Him we understand the Father in Heaven.

But, we cannot abandon the connotation of wisdom, reason, or logic from the word Logos, even in the Christian sense. John chose the word logos intentionally because of it was already very accurate.

I could totally talk about this in another thread. I love this topic.

Of course it the right connotation, and in this scripture the ONLY one. Like I said, start a thread and I'll join in.

This Vale Of Tears · Aug 10, 2014

UppsalaDragby said:
Sure... no problem with that... although I would much rather describe it as dogmatism, than fundmentalism. Without googling any definitions.. to me dogmatism is a mentality whereby someone tenaciously insists that their interpretation of scripture, or their worldview, is the only correct interpretation in existance. They firmly entrench themselves in that interpretation without showing any willingness to compromise, or even admit that they could be wrong. Fundamentalism, on the other hand, is simply believing that scripture means what it says "literally", except where the context dicates otherwise.

Of course, there are dogmatic fundamentalists........ just as there are dogmatic liberalists... but that is what discussions like this are all about.

I kind of get the feeling that you think that I am a "dogmatic fundamentalist", but I actually try to avoid asserting things too much. I understand that there are people who disagree with me, and, very importantly, that I could be wrong. But on the other hand I oppose people very strongly when they try to assert things that they have no right in asserting. In most cases I think I use reasoning, rather than assertion, to support what I write in my posts.

For example, if someone insists that the book of Genesis is entirely allegorical then I ask them how the lineage of Jesus given in the gospels is based in fictional characters, .... and other questions like that. If they claim that Genesis is a combination of both literal facts and allegories then I work from there. All we can do is reason with each other. And if someone rejects scripture altogether then there is not much anyone can do...

But nobody says that Genesis is entirely allegorical. As I mentioned earlier, Genesis is a large book canvasing thousands of years and incorporates different literary styles. The pourquoi style that the story of creation was written in is not the same style that the Great Flood, the genealogies, or the life of Abraham were written in. In fact, it's believed by some that as many as 4 different authors wrote Genesis which certainly explains the changes in syntax and style.

UppsalaDragby · Aug 10, 2014

This Vale Of Tears said:
But nobody says that Genesis is entirely allegorical. As I mentioned earlier, Genesis is a large book canvasing thousands of years and incorporates different literary styles. The pourquoi style that the story of creation was written in is not the same style that the Great Flood, the genealogies, or the life of Abraham were written in. In fact, it's believed by some that as many as 4 different authors wrote Genesis which certainly explains the changes in syntax and style.

And how do you know that anyone claiming that Genesis is a "pourquoi story" isn't just putting a label on doubt? What makes you so sure that the creation account has a different "style" than the other accounts that you mentioned?

This Vale Of Tears · Aug 10, 2014

UppsalaDragby said:
And how do you know that anyone claiming that Genesis is a "pourquoi story" isn't just putting a label on doubt? What makes you so sure that the creation account has a different "style" than the other accounts that you mentioned?

Are you really that dense that you didn't even understand what I just posted?

This Vale Of Tears said:
But nobody says that Genesis is entirely allegorical. As I mentioned earlier, Genesis is a large book canvasing thousands of years and incorporates different literary styles. The pourquoi style that the story of creation was written in is not the same style that the Great Flood, the genealogies, or the life of Abraham were written in. In fact, it's believed by some that as many as 4 different authors wrote Genesis which certainly explains the changes in syntax and style.

UppsalaDragby · Aug 10, 2014

This Vale Of Tears said:
Are you really that dense that you didn't even understand what I just posted?

Sure I did... and all I can see is that you have made a number of assertions. So why are you using an ad-hominem in order to avoid my questions?

StanJ · Aug 10, 2014

UppsalaDragby said:
Sure I did... and all I can see is that you have made a number of assertions. So why are you using an ad-hominem in order to avoid my questions?

Kinda his style...he does that when he doesn't actually have an answer but wants to save face.

Theodore A. Jones · Aug 10, 2014

UppsalaDragby said:
Yeah..that's what I was getting at. Aspen obviously doesn't categorize himself as a "fundie" so when he quotes scripture his credibility sinks. He could say practically anything at all and just claim that anyone disagreeing with him based on scripture is a fundamentalist. So what he is doing is declaring himself the judge of what is or isn't a fundamentalist belief.

But I'm still waiting for him to respond...

I don't see anything in scripture, not even in John 3.16, that says that everyone is God's "favorite". The fact that God loves the world so much that he sacrificed his own son does not mean that he places tyrants and murderers on the same level as people who respond to his love, repent from their sins and are born again. God doesn't love who we are, he loves who we can become in Christ.

"For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous." Rom. 2:13 Salvation is not universal and it is dependent upon the faith of obeying the law that Paul is referencing which is not the Sinai code or ceremonial laws.

StanJ · Aug 10, 2014

Theodore A. Jones said:
"For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous." Rom. 2:13 Salvation is not universal and it is dependent upon the faith of obeying the law that Paul is referencing which is not the Sinai code or ceremonial laws.

Paul is referencing those that ARE under the law here, not we who walk by faith. Salvation is dependent on faith and it is for WHOSOEVER WILL.

UppsalaDragby · Aug 10, 2014

StanJ said:
Kinda his style...he does that when he doesn't actually have an answer but wants to save face.

Yeah.. his "style" seems to be that we should consider "style" to be the judge of whether or not the Bible is truthfull in what it says.

Theodore A. Jones · Aug 10, 2014

StanJ said:
Paul is referencing those that ARE under the law here, not we who walk by faith. Salvation is dependent on faith and it is for WHOSOEVER WILL.

"but it is those whosoever will obey the law who will be declared righteous." Rom. 2:13b The law Paul is referencing is not the Sinai code nor the ceremonial laws of the OT. No one escapes that law's penalty by not having the faith to obey the law Paul is referencing. There are no exceptions.

UppsalaDragby · Aug 10, 2014

Theodore A. Jones said:
"but it is those whosoever will obey the law who will be declared righteous." Rom. 2:13b The law Paul is referencing is not the Sinai code nor the ceremonial laws of the OT. No one escapes that law's penalty by not having the faith to obey the law Paul is referencing. There are no exceptions.

Sounds a little bit like SDA theology... but I guess I could be wrong. :huh:

What law do you think Paul was referring to? It would have to be a law that was known to the Gentile nations as well as the people of Israel. Otherwise how on earth could anyone who "did not have the law" be able to keep the law's requirements?

Romans 2:14-16 seems to indicate that there is a "law" that is based on conscience, not on any written law. My contention is that the "Law of God" is such a law. What do you have to say about that?

StanJ · Aug 10, 2014

Theodore A. Jones said:
"but it is those whosoever will obey the law who will be declared righteous." Rom. 2:13b The law Paul is referencing is not the Sinai code nor the ceremonial laws of the OT. No one escapes that law's penalty by not having the faith to obey the law Paul is referencing. There are no exceptions.

Again, Paul is not talking about believers here in v13, he is comparing those who walk by faith to those who were or are under the law.
v12;
For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned under the law will be judged by the law.
Paul preached Jesus and freedom from the law under the NC.
v9;
But the Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter, whose praise is not from people but from God.

UppsalaDragby said:
Sounds a little bit like SDA theology... but I guess I could be wrong. :huh:

What law do you think Paul was referring to? It would have to be a law that was known to the Gentile nations as well as the people of Israel. Otherwise how on earth could anyone who "did not have the law" be able to keep the law's requirements?

Romans 2:14-16 seems to indicate that there is a "law" that is based on conscience, not on any written law. My contention is that the "Law of God" is such a law. What do you have to say about that?

Teddy has his own way of thinking...I've seen him around a lot on different forums.

Foreigner · Aug 10, 2014

aspen said:
if we are not all predestined for heaven, you must believe that God created some people for the sole purpose of being tortured in Hell for eternity. if "God so loved the world that He gave his only Son" He would have sent him to die in vain for the majority of the world that were created for Hell. that is simply not possibleaccording to Gods character

This actually ties in well with a difficult conversation I have been having with someone I have been sharing with off and on for over a year.

That aside, the statement "...you must believe that God created some people for the sole purpose of being tortured in Hell for eternity" is not exactly what was being said.

I think there is a difference between God already knowing what a person's outcome/life choices will be...

...and trying to sell the idea that God knit someone together in their mother's womb for the singular purpose of sending them to hell, as your statement implies.

But as far as all being "predestined for heaven," I would offer this:
"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." - Matt. 7:13-14

In order for everyone to be "predestined" for heaven, this ^ ^ ^ would have to be talking about anything but.

Or to look at it on more of a strategic level, if "predestination" truly is the plan, then why would God commission people to go to the four corners of the world - in many cases risking life and limb - to preach His gospel?

Theodore A. Jones · Aug 10, 2014

Theodore A. Jones said:
"but it is those whosoever will obey the law who will be declared righteous." Rom. 2:13b The law Paul is referencing is not the Sinai code nor the ceremonial laws of the OT. No one escapes that law's penalty by not having the faith to obey the law Paul is referencing. There are no exceptions.

UppsalaDragby said:
Sounds a little bit like SDA theology... but I guess I could be wrong. :huh:

What law do you think Paul was referring to? It would have to be a law that was known to the Gentile nations as well as the people of Israel. Otherwise how on earth could anyone who "did not have the law" be able to keep the law's requirements?

Romans 2:14-16 seems to indicate that there is a "law" that is based on conscience, not on any written law. My contention is that the "Law of God" is such a law. What do you have to say about that?

FYI I am not affiliated with SDA nor any other contemporary religious perspective nor do I endorse or support any of them.

The law Paul is referencing in Rom. 2 :13 is the word that was added to the law in regard to the sin of Jesus' murder. Only a sin can be repented of to obey the Acts 2:38 command and that sin is the corporate sin that was committed against Jesus by crucifying him. In order for the murder of Jesus Christ to be a benefit to anyone the law was changed upon his ascension and installation to the office of high priest, but under a different priestly order. What you do not understand is that that by the murder of Jesus Christ it became a unilaterally accountable sin for each man by adding REPENT to the law which requires you to confess directly to God that you are truly sorry his only begotten son was murdered when he was crucified. The murder of Jesus Christ was not in your place nor anyone else's either. "When the people heard this they were cut to the heart (conscience)" whereby they asked "Brothers what shall we do?" "Repent of it and be baptized for the forgiveness of your past sins." There is no other Way for any man to become born again of God for it is the law for each man. There are no exceptions.
That few find the gate into the kingdom of God which has been perfected by the murder of Jesus Christ was not an understatement.

Foreigner said:
This actually ties in well with a difficult conversation I have been having with someone I have been sharing with off and on for over a year.

That aside, the statement "...you must believe that God created some people for the sole purpose of being tortured in Hell for eternity" is not exactly what was being said.

I think there is a difference between God already knowing what a person's outcome/life choices will be...

...and trying to sell the idea that God knit someone together in their mother's womb for the singular purpose of sending them to hell, as your statement implies.

But as far as all being "predestined for heaven," I would offer this:
"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." - Matt. 7:13-14

In order for everyone to be "predestined" for heaven, this ^ ^ ^ would have to be talking about anything but.

Or to look at it on more of a strategic level, if "predestination" truly is the plan, then why would God commission people to go to the four corners of the world - in many cases risking life and limb - to preach His gospel?

1. God has only knitted a person together in his mother's womb.
2. What the small narrow gate actually is; I've recently stated.
3. Make every effort to enter by it or deliberately disobey the only law of God that is not forgivable.

Liquid Psalm · Aug 10, 2014

I think God has always culled the human race. The old testament accounts of people being slaughtered by the Hebrews, the great flood, etc...
And even after we die we are culled in that we are segregated into two groups for eternity. Those who shall thrive in Heaven. And those who shall suffer in Hell.

It's predestined according to God and his plan before the creation of the earth so why sweat it?

aspen said:
So, is God just trying to cull humanity? Sorting out the losers from the winners......the righteous from the malicious, manical sinners........fans from the practitioners?

what i see is a constant drumbeat: a sort of call - a rally........a self righteous expectation that all people should be saved!!

Yet, i am failing to see what all the hoopla is really about.

I think Christianity is a call to love perfectly, like Christ, but this idea seems to be perceived as "fluffy". "ear tickling". "easy grace".

"easy grace" is a worse redundancy than the term "free gift"

God is not trying to keep us from Heaven; He is constantly showing us the enterance.

Angelina · Aug 10, 2014

Theodore.A. Jones

In order for the murder of Jesus Christ to be a benefit to anyone the law was changed upon his ascension and installation to the office of high priest, but under a different priestly order. What you do not understand is that that by the murder of Jesus Christ it became a unilaterally accountable sin for each man by adding REPENT to the law which requires you to confess directly to God that you are truly sorry his only begotten son was murdered when he was crucified. The murder of Jesus Christ was not in your place nor anyone else's either. "When the people heard this they were cut to the heart (conscience)" whereby they asked "Brothers what shall we do?" "Repent of it and be baptized for the forgiveness of your past sins." There is no other Way for any man to become born again of God for it is the law for each man. There are no exceptions.

This is not correct. Jesus Priestly order was already set in place since the beginning Hebrews 7:3. His whole purpose of coming into the world was to face the cross, to die and rise again for the sake of humanity. Death came into the world through one man, "Adam" Romans 5:17. Eternal life through another Romans 5:11. The O/T law is the law of sin and death which Jesus overcame with his blood to set those under the law free by faith. Romans 8:1-2 and to grant those without the law [Gentiles] the blessings of the promise by faith. Romans 8:11. Galatians 3:8

Romans 5
8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. 10 For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. 11 And not only that, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.

If you haven't got your basics right - everything else will be understood based on incorrect doctrine.

This Vale Of Tears · Sep 23, 2014

Liquid Psalm said:
I think God has always culled the human race. The old testament accounts of people being slaughtered by the Hebrews, the great flood, etc...
And even after we die we are culled in that we are segregated into two groups for eternity. Those who shall thrive in Heaven. And those who shall suffer in Hell.

It's predestined according to God and his plan before the creation of the earth so why sweat it?

Nobody is predestined to eternity in hell. The cruel "god" of the Calvinists is not the God I know, love, and serve.

culling

New Member

New Member

Indian Papist

Lifelong student of God's Word.

Indian Papist

New Member

Indian Papist

New Member

Lifelong student of God's Word.

New Member

Lifelong student of God's Word.

New Member

New Member

New Member

Lifelong student of God's Word.

New Member

New Member

New Member

Prayer Warrior

Indian Papist

Similar threads