culling

[UppsalaDragby]

Every human is predestined. We are all His favorites.

What do you base these statements on?

 

[aspen]

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 Vale Of Tears]

I think the Christian industry started making significant money in the seventies - Amy Grants first husband was a casualty of it. There was a time when authors and comedians were not even questioned as long as they could make the industry money - Mike Wernike, the late great planet earth guy, frank peretti were the products - poor quality and immorality were common place.

I don't know why Christians making money is always suspect, I myself suspect no small amount of covetousness among those who question the right for Christians to make money. Frank Peretti writes novels that fire the imagination and he deserves as much success as other authors I love like Dean Koonts and Orson Scott Card. Amy Grant is also deserving of her success and it's impious to covet it. There's no reason to believe that Christian music artists are living in the lap of luxury, in fact, they are about middle class when it comes to income level. Rich Mullins before he passed away lived on a "reverse tithe" living off of 10% of his income and donating the rest to charity. There's simply no cause to scandalize these people.

And now we have Catholic's in this industry too, not the least of which include Kathy Troccoli and Matt Mahar. Are they also being ethically questionable?

My problem isn't with these authors and artists, it's with the corporatization of their work. Look how quickly Tim Lahaye and Jerry B. Jenkin's "Left Behind" series became a major franchise. At some point it becomes not about the message or the ministry, it becomes about maximizing profits, a practice that I mightily detest. If that's what you're seizing upon, then I agree with you completely.

 

[StanJ]

I think the Christian industry started making significant money in the seventies - Amy Grants first husband was a casualty of it. There was a time when authors and comedians were not even questioned as long as they could make the industry money - Mike Wernike, the late great planet earth guy, frank peretti were the products - poor quality and immorality were common place.

There was a time that ONLY CCM was making money, which is why secular labels bought them out. The fact that they were able to shows those labels who were "Christian", were really only in it for the money. Reality sometimes is brutal to some.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

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

I didn't ask you for any ifs and buts. I asked you what your assertions were based on.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

I didn't ask you for any ifs and buts. I asked you what your assertions were based on.

Aspen quoted John 3:16, one of the most compelling, forceful refutations of the delusions of Calvinism in the Bible. The entire absurd TULIP belief system is undone by that single verse. There is nothing more that can reasonably be asked of Aspen.

 

[aspen]

I didnt say anything negative about any of the artists you mentioned, Vale. Nor did i say anything negative about their personal income or how they choose to spend their money. My point is that the industry was not discerning in the seventies/early eighties and therefore promoted people like Wernkie, Peretti, and Lindsey. the only reason I include Peretti is because hewrites about Dualism and calls it Christianity. Wernkie is a fraud, womanizer, liar, thief and drug user. lindsey is a false prophet. Large amounts of money leads to greed and corruption. You are the person who is accussing others of covetting

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

I didnt say anything negative about any of the artists you mentioned, Vale. Nor did i say anything negative about their personal income or how they choose to spend their money. My point is that the industry was not discerning in the seventies/early eighties and therefore promoted people like Wernkie, Peretti, and Lindsey. the only reason I include Peretti is because hewrites about Dualism and calls it Christianity. Wernkie is a fraud, womanizer, liar, thief and drug user. lindsey is a false prophet. Large amounts of money leads to greed and corruption. You are the person who is accussing others of covetting

Pax Christi, Frater

Right in the middle of my post I thought you might be making this point which is why I ended it the way I did. Frank Peretti teaches dualism? I've read many of his books and never got that impression. Can you give an example?

 

[UppsalaDragby]

Aspen quoted John 3:16, one of the most compelling, forceful refutations of the delusions of Calvinism in the Bible. The entire absurd TULIP belief system is undone by that single verse. There is nothing more that can reasonably be asked of Aspen.

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.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

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.

Aspen is Catholic as I am and Catholics are not fundamentalists by any means...

But I've read his posts enough to know he's expressing a point of sentiment, one with which I agree. We are certainly born precious in God's sight, and like any parent who has the highest hopes for their baby they bring into the world, God hopes that every one of us will learn to love him and want to be with him forever. A point of sentiment is not a claimed article of fact subject to the ordinary scrutiny of critical thinking to be proven or disproven through the preponderance of supporting data. If I walk up to a total stranger and tell him "God loves you" it's a statement that draws upon innate, mutual knowledge that confounds logic and documentation. Love can't be spied through a telescope, measured by calipers, weighed on a scale, or proven by quotation of scripture. Because we were created out of love, we understand love and when somebody says everyone is God's favorite, it can easily be understood what that means.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

Aspen is Catholic as I am and Catholics are not fundamentalists by any means...

But I've read his posts enough to know he's expressing a point of sentiment, one with which I agree. We are certainly born precious in God's sight, and like any parent who has the highest hopes for their baby they bring into the world, God hopes that every one of us will learn to love him and want to be with him forever. A point of sentiment is not a claimed article of fact subject to the ordinary scrutiny of critical thinking to be proven or disproven through the preponderance of supporting data. If I walk up to a total stranger and tell him "God loves you" it's a statement that draws upon innate, mutual knowledge that confounds logic and documentation. Love can't be spied through a telescope, measured by calipers, weighed on a scale, or proven by quotation of scripture. Because we were created out of love, we understand love and when somebody says everyone is God's favorite, it can easily be understood what that means.

Sure, I don't have any problem with that, and my point was never that we aren't precious in God's sight, of course not! But I think we are precious because God sees in us what we can become, not what we are. Otherwise we would not need to be born again.

As far as being a fundamentalist is concerned, I would like to ask both you and aspen what a fundamentalist is. Who is a fundamentalist? Who isn't? Who decides who is or isn't a fundamentalist? What standard do you use?

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

Sure, I don't have any problem with that, and my point was never that we aren't precious in God's sight, of course not! But I think we are precious because God sees in us what we can become, not what we are. Otherwise we would not need to be born again.

As far as being a fundamentalist is concerned, I would like to ask both you and aspen what a fundamentalist is. Who is a fundamentalist? Who isn't? Who decides who is or isn't a fundamentalist? What standard do you use?

Fundamentalism is described many ways, but the consensus seems to focus on how the Bible is interpreted and how it is applied to Christians today.

Catholics do not believe that the Bible is necessarily literal and we don't exclude the possibility that some stories were not actual events. I don't believe that Job existed as a literal person which makes fundamentalists pull their hair out. And certainly as it pertains to the account of creation in the Bible, I don't believe the earth was made in a literal 7 days or that the descriptions given were exact formulae for how things came to be.

And as far as how the Bible is applied, we are not under the Old Testament law. Seventh Day Adventists think that Christians are violating the Bible by worshipping on Sunday rather than Saturday. This is an example of fundamentalist exegesis. Catholics believe that Jesus gave his authority to a living, breathing Church, not a book. And the Church by the authority invested in it, changed the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday, which was fully within its authority to do.

Of course a couple of examples can't fully encompass the vast points of divergence between fundamentalists and non fundamentalists, but I posit them to show how these viewpoints differ.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

Fundamentalism is described many ways, but the consensus seems to focus on how the Bible is interpreted and how it is applied to Christians today.

Catholics do not believe that the Bible is necessarily literal and we don't exclude the possibility that some stories were not actual events. I don't believe that Job existed as a literal person which makes fundamentalists pull their hair out. And certainly as it pertains to the account of creation in the Bible, I don't believe the earth was made in a literal 7 days or that the descriptions given were exact formulae for how things came to be.

And as far as how the Bible is applied, we are not under the Old Testament law. Seventh Day Adventists think that Christians are violating the Bible by worshipping on Sunday rather than Saturday. This is an example of fundamentalist exegesis. Catholics believe that Jesus gave his authority to a living, breathing Church, not a book. And the Church by the authority invested in it, changed the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday, which was fully within its authority to do.

Of course a couple of examples can't fully encompass the vast points of divergence between fundamentalists and non fundamentalists, but I posit them to show how these viewpoints differ.

Yes, but not even the so-called fundamentalists claim that the entire Bible is literal, so I still don't understand where you draw the line between who a fundmentalist is, and perhaps more importantly, who isn't a fundamentalist. That SDAs believe that Saturday is the sabbath is no more fundamentalistic than your belief that God gave his authority to the church. Both views are based on scripture. An SDA clould just as easily claim that catholics take Matthew 16:18 too literally.

 

[StanJ]

Yes, but not even the so-called fundamentalists claim that the entire Bible is literal, so I still don't understand where you draw the line between who a fundmentalist is, and perhaps more importantly, who isn't a fundamentalist. That SDAs believe that Saturday is the sabbath is no more fundamentalistic than your belief that God gave his authority to the church. Both views are based on scripture. An SDA clould just as easily claim that catholics take Matthew 16:18 too literally.

Despite some protestations to the contrary, fundamentalists will be those that support the Nicene Creed. Many RCs are considered fundamentalists.
The actual group statement can be found HERE.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

Yes, but not even the so-called fundamentalists claim that the entire Bible is literal, so I still don't understand where you draw the line between who a fundmentalist is, and perhaps more importantly, who isn't a fundamentalist. That SDAs believe that Saturday is the sabbath is no more fundamentalistic than your belief that God gave his authority to the church. Both views are based on scripture. An SDA clould just as easily claim that catholics take Matthew 16:18 too literally.

But the difference is in where authority is vested. According to the SDA the Church had no right to change the Sabbath because the Bible is the ultimate authority, but the Church changed the Sabbath centuries before the Bible even existed and did so because it draws authority from Jesus Christ, and not because they read that somewhere but because Jesus commissioned the apostles who appointed successors. The early church who did this had the same scriptures we have today regarding the Sabbath, but they didn't consider themselves bound by the old law. Their understanding of the New Covenant was much keener.

So you're trying to imply futility to the task of defining fundamentalism, but the differences are clear. Some churches meet only in homes, disdaining church buildings as unbiblical because the New Testament says believers met in their homes. Others drink poison and handle dangerous snakes because they read somewhere in the Bible that they would not be hurt by it. There are many variations but one common theme, that the Bible is infallible not only in inspiration but in how literally it applies as a rule book.

And then you have young earth creationists and nothing exemplifies what a fundamentalist is more than the belief that the earth is only 6500 years old and that it was made in 144 hours. However, I prefer even these fundamentalists to the materialists (including those right here on this forum) who think we descended from crap flinging apes. Oh, and by the way, I try to stay out of throwing distance to these people too...you never know.

 

[Tex]

@ Vale

So the Earth can't be brought into existence in 144 hours, but humanity still poofed instantly into existence with the only cause being the creative work of God, and no material secondary cause (evolution). Ironic.

Raisins come from grapes
People come from apes
I come from Canada
- Barenaked Ladies

 

[StanJ]

So the Earth can't be brought into existence in 144 hours, but humanity still poofed instantly into existence with the only cause being the creative work of God, and no material secondary cause (evolution). Ironic.

I do find it amusing that most Christians accept the fact that God created man and woman in an instant and they were fully mature adults, the same as all the animals he created were fully mature creatures, but that He couldn't have created a fully mature earth/universe in the same fashion. Apparently in some peoples view, the egg came first.
:unsure:

 

[UppsalaDragby]

But the difference is in where authority is vested. According to the SDA the Church had no right to change the Sabbath because the Bible is the ultimate authority, but the Church changed the Sabbath centuries before the Bible even existed and did so because it draws authority from Jesus Christ, and not because they read that somewhere but because Jesus commissioned the apostles who appointed successors. The early church who did this had the same scriptures we have today regarding the Sabbath, but they didn't consider themselves bound by the old law. Their understanding of the New Covenant was much keener.

So you're trying to imply futility to the task of defining fundamentalism, but the differences are clear. Some churches meet only in homes, disdaining church buildings as unbiblical because the New Testament says believers met in their homes. Others drink poison and handle dangerous snakes because they read somewhere in the Bible that they would not be hurt by it. There are many variations but one common theme, that the Bible is infallible not only in inspiration but in how literally it applies as a rule book.

And then you have young earth creationists and nothing exemplifies what a fundamentalist is more than the belief that the earth is only 6500 years old and that it was made in 144 hours. However, I prefer even these fundamentalists to the materialists (including those right here on this forum) who think we descended from crap flinging apes. Oh, and by the way, I try to stay out of throwing distance to these people too...you never know.

Vale, I'm neither an SDA, nor a catholic. I have spent days, weeks, months and probably about two years debating SDAs, and in fact I even did so just about an hour ago today on YouTube where I go under the name "updr12". (check it out here if you want:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/106743207484462359693/posts/AnLWj4GEHEK)

I would definitely venture to say that I am very well versed in what the issues are about concerning the sabbath and the Mosaic law. You, however, simply make a string of claims without providing much evidence that what you say is true, or that you are any less a fundamentalist than they are. Where, for example, did you get the idea that the Bible draws authority from Jesus Christ? Is that what Jesus said? No, he didn't, and neither did any of the NT authors. We understand that there is a change in the law with the coming of a new high priest, but what that change consists of is explained to us in scripture.

Now it is just as easy to point out people throwing snakes around as an example of fundamentalism it is for someone to attack the way many catholics behave in their beliefs, rituals and behaviors. But that proves absolutely nothing in a discussion like this, and I am not interested in getting bogged down in things like that.

You might disagree with what creationists say, but unless you can show that your views are free from what you call "fundamentalistm" then you have no right to put a label on them, do you? Creationists believe that what the bible says about creation is literally true, and for that you call them fundamentalists, and yet you believe that the authority of scripture has been superceded by the church also because you consider it literally true. That is why I asked you the questions I did.

I do find it amusing that most Christians accept the fact that God created man and woman in an instant and they were fully mature adults, the same as all the animals he created were fully mature creatures, but that He couldn't have created a fully mature earth/universe in the same fashion. Apparently in some peoples view, the egg came first.
:unsure:

Exactly Stan! If God created Adam's body as a fully functioning system, with blood flowing through his veins, air flowing through his lungs, impulses shooting back and fourth in his nervous system, then why can't he create a fully functioning universe from its genesis. Many oppose the idea that God would create a universe with light in transit with the argument that such a thing would be deceptive. But that is utter rubbish! There is nothing deceptive in that at all. If God tells us the exact amount of time it took for him to create the universe, then how does making our own contrary assumptions about how long it took make God the deceiver?

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

Vale, I'm neither an SDA, nor a catholic. I have spent days, weeks, months and probably about two years debating SDAs, and in fact I even did so just about an hour ago today on YouTube where I go under the name "updr12". (check it out here if you want:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/106743207484462359693/posts/AnLWj4GEHEK)

I would definitely venture to say that I am very well versed in what the issues are about concerning the sabbath and the Mosaic law. You, however, simply make a string of claims without providing much evidence that what you say is true, or that you are any less a fundamentalist than they are. Where, for example, did you get the idea that the Bible draws authority from Jesus Christ? Is that what Jesus said? No, he didn't, and neither did any of the NT authors. We understand that there is a change in the law with the coming of a new high priest, but what that change consists of is explained to us in scripture.

Now it is just as easy to point out people throwing snakes around as an example of fundamentalism it is for someone to attack the way many catholics behave in their beliefs, rituals and behaviors. But that proves absolutely nothing in a discussion like this, and I am not interested in getting bogged down in things like that.

You might disagree with what creationists say, but unless you can show that your views are free from what you call "fundamentalistm" then you have no right to put a label on them, do you? Creationists believe that what the bible says about creation is literally true, and for that you call them fundamentalists, and yet you believe that the authority of scripture has been superceded by the church also because you consider it literally true. That is why I asked you the questions I did.

It seems that you're just touchy about the term fundamentalist and will spout off semantic arguments endlessly to defy any attempt to define the term. If there's any group that embodies the term "fundamentalist" it's young earth creationists, but you want to fight even that. I'm not going to engage you in mundane exercises over such a trivial point. I apply the label "fundamentalist" in the same manner it's commonly applied in Christian circles and I really don't care if you agree or not, nor do I feel the need to PROVE anything to you.

Now that we got that out of the way, the manner in which the early church acted is proof of what Jesus said. The Bible records "all authority in heaven and earth has been given unto me, go therefore and make disciples of the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things I have commanded you." Even Protestants call this, "The Great Commission" and the meaning of commission couldn't be more clear, it's a direct transfer of authority. Jesus furthermore gives them authority to forgive sins, to bind and to loose, and gives them the keys to the kingdom of heaven. All of this is recorded in scripture.

But the real proof, as I said, is how the early church practiced that authority. When they ended circumcision and changed the Sabbath, they were clearly acting "unbiblically" if one assumes that the Bible is the source of authority and a rule book and a final arbiter of doctrinal faith. But the early Christians did not believe such an absurd notion that they were "people of the book". Scripture was used to exhort, to teach, to correct, to uplift, but it was always treated as a reference, not an authority, which is why even the Bible teaches AGAINST sola scriptura, saying, "hold to the traditions you have been taught, either by word or our epistle" (2Thess 2:15). Certainly the gospels didn't contain everything Jesus taught nor the epistles everything the disciples taught. But there was a thriving, generational oral tradition, which the epistles supplemented, by which Christians were taught the faith and how to live it.

Fundamentalism is the belief that a book is the final authority, not a living, breathing, commissioned Church. If you don't like the label, tough cookies.

 

[StanJ]

Fundamentalism is the belief that a book is the final authority, not a living, breathing, commissioned Church.

and there we have the RCC position of church authority being the ultimate authority, instead of God and His Word.