culling

[UppsalaDragby]

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.

No Vale, I'm not touchy about the term fundamentalist. If anything I am touchy about labels that people place on others that they could very easily wear them themselves. In general I try not to get touchy, or take things personally in forums like this because I realize the sensitive nature of discussing faith.

I don't mind the fact that people believe that certain parts of the Bible are not to be taken literally. I also do that to a certain extent. But if anyone asserts that certain books in the Bible are not to be taken literally, and that those who do take them literally deserve to be call "fundamentalists", then I would at least expect them to give a very, very good reason to support their claims. I find that very rare.

For example, let me ask you why you think the book of Job, and Genesis, should not be taken literally? Perhaps we can reason together about that...

As for your point concerning the commission that Jesus gave the disciples, I don't really understand your point. Firstly, the "authority" was given to Jesus, not the disciples. And secondly, you haven't pointed out how the authority of scripture given to man did NOT come from Jesus. Thirdly, even though Jesus gave his disciples his authority, nothing in scripture teaches us that such authority replaces, supercedes, or goes beyond what scripture dictates.

You see what I mean? You are using the authority of scripture, to prove that the authority of scripture has been superceded? Don't you see a problem with that??

As far as the "early church" is concerned, I tend to adhere to what Paul said:

"I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. So be on your guard!"

People distort the truth, scripture does not.

And I don't see anywhere in scripture that teaches us that it is a "recommendation". On the contrary, it is described as an authority:

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Something that is used to "correct" and "rebuke" can hardly be a "recommendation", but obviously something given to us so that we would understand, and be able to "be on our guards" against those who "distort the truth". How else would we be able to do so? If the "distortion" was to come from within the church, which you claim was the authority that superceded scripture, then what standard would anyone be able to use to determine truth??

Considering your last comment, I kind of think you are the one getting touchy and defensive. I must have hit a nerve. I treat you as I do all others, whether or not they are SDA, catholics, JWs or athiests. I attempt to use reasoning and the scriptures to determine who is right. But you seem to be taking this personally. I am not attacking you, I am reasoning with you. Can you tell the difference?

 

[Tex]

@StanJ

Actually, I argue the opposite and say the egg came first on all accounts. The universe began primordially, earth began primordially, life began primordially, and even human beings began primordially. At the very least, it is consistent.

 

[aspen]

UD - why do you consistently accuse everyone you talk to on this board of doing exactly what they point out in you? it is like clockwork - now Vale is the fundamentalist.......i think you have "i know you are, but what am i" confsed with "reasoning" . You think you are reasoning#ut you are one of the least reasonable people here. Wait! i got this one for you "no aspen, YOU are actually the least reasonable person here".....

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

For example, let me ask you why you think the book of Job, and Genesis, should not be taken literally? Perhaps we can reason together about that...

Because of the literary style in which Job was written. It was clearly the product of a playwright designed to be acted out on stage with each actor dramatizing their point of view. It includes a fanciful conversation between Satan and God which no human being could have possibly witnessed and therefore it screams "fiction" right from the very beginning.. It alludes to Jewish philosophy on suffering and accepting evil from God as well as good and as a story, it's invaluable as a teaching tool, but it never literally happened.

And Genesis is a different deal altogether. It's a large book that contains several literary styles. But in particular, the story of creation was written as a pourquoi, not as a detailed, literal record of exactly how the earth was created. The author of Genesis was moved by God with certain concepts, but wrote according to his own limited understanding and viewpoint. The author of Genesis wasn't even aware that the earth was round, which is why he made reference to foundations and firmaments. This is called "sitz im leben", the view of inspiration that God gave men general ideas and men wrote them according to their time, culture, and the limits of their understanding. It's not a dictation as many believe.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

UD - why do you consistently accuse everyone you talk to on this board of doing exactly what they point out in you? it is like clockwork - now Vale is the fundamentalist.......i think you have "i know you are, but what am i" confsed with "reasoning" . You think you are reasoning#ut you are one of the least reasonable people here. Wait! i got this one for you "no aspen, YOU are actually the least reasonable person here".....

Aspen, all I am doing is questioning the way people put labels on others when anyone CAN put the same label on them. I never labeled her a fundamentalist. What I did was show her that from someone else's perspective she could also be called a fundamentalist. Get it??? Fundamentalist is NOT a word I use to describe someone who takes scripture literally. I might disagree with them about it, but in that case I attempt to reason with them, not put labels on them.

So instead of trying to sow discord, why don't you read things more carefully!

If you have something constructive to say, then please be a part of this discussion by addressing the points I made, rather than try to attack me personally. And if you do have a valid complaint, then use quotes, instead of vague, general statements.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

She is a he, and has a wife and 4 children to prove it.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

She is a he, and has a wife and 4 children to prove it.

OK, sorry about that Vale. :blink:

 

[KingJ]

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:

I think we all believe He did create the egg in the same manner as us. It is just the timing on when it was done. I don't see how Adam could be in charge of all of creation on earth if there were T-rexes running around ^_^.

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.

I agree. But I think we disagree on 'love perfectly'. When someone is in mortal sin, loving them could be rebuking them.

I am wondering Aspen, do you believe in universalism?

I am definitely for universalism > torture eternity. I don't see a single scripture where God ever tortured His enemy!! But I do see scripture where God separates the wolves and the lambs. Wolves / sinners are unsettled / have no inner peace / in torment spiritually everyday...yet they still sin and love darkness. Hell is a home not a torture chamber.

 

[StanJ]

@StanJ

Actually, I argue the opposite and say the egg came first on all accounts. The universe began primordially, earth began primordially, life began primordially, and even human beings began primordially. At the very least, it is consistent.

How sad, feel free to start a thread on the issue and I'll show you how wrong you are.

I think we all believe He did create the egg in the same manner as us. It is just the timing on when it was done. I don't see how Adam could be in charge of all of creation on earth if there were T-rexes running around ^_^.

Well either you or Tex can voice your opinions in a new thread and I'll weigh in. FYI, accepting the current scientific method of dating is putting science before God's Word.

 

[Tex]

@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.

 

[aspen]

i think all Christians should pray for universalism. we should never pray for the damnation of others. i do not believe in universalism - i hope it is do to a lack of my own faith

 

[StanJ]

i think all Christians should pray for universalism. we should never pray for the damnation of others. i do not believe in universalism - i hope it is do to a lack of my own faith

Unlimited atonement is NOT the same as universalism. Christians should believe in Unlimited Atonement but not universalism.

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.

Well then you have nothing to lose in starting the conversation do you Tex? Logos and logic are nowhere near the same my friend. You only find the Logos by faith, not by logic.

 

[Tex]

I pray that, no matter how disfigured the sheep is, heal it and bring it into the fold. However, I also pray that regardless how beautiful the goat is, keep it away from the sheep.

 

[aspen]

you cannot save anyone, but i hope jesus will redeem everyone

 

[StanJ]

you cannot save anyone, but i hope jesus will redeem everyone

He has Aspen...they just need to confess Him as their savior and accept that redemption. Fact is they all haven't, so not all will be saved.

 

[Tex]

@StanJ

Oops, I forgot a part.

I would have nothing to lose, but nothing to gain. No point. And "logos" is where we get the word "logic". Heraclitus and other Greek philosophers used "logos" with many connotations, all of them reflective in Jesus. Denying logic is denying reason, denying reason is denying wisdom, and denying wisdom is denying our Lord.

 

[StanJ]

@StanJ

Oops, I forgot a part.

I would have nothing to lose, but nothing to gain. No point. And "logos" is where we get the word "logic". Heraclitus and other Greek philosophers used "logos" with many connotations, all of them reflective in Jesus. Denying logic is denying reason, denying reason is denying wisdom, and denying wisdom is denying our Lord.

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

 

[Madad21]

He has Aspen...they just need to confess Him as their savior and accept that redemption. Fact is they all haven't, so not all will be saved.

This is true and this is where its up to us to speak up, Aspen makes the point that we cannot save and that is true to an extent, but we do sow seeds.

The subject being culling is touched on with great detail in Matthew 13.
In Jesus' parable of the farmer (Matt 13:3-9) he throws the seed all over the show. This is how we are meant to live throwing the seed of faith all over the place no matter where it lands. Its of no consequence to us where it lands.

And then the subject of understanding Christ and his message is brought to the fore when the disciples ask Jesus to clarify the farmer story. Jesus says to them;
(Matthew 13:11-13) "He replied, “You are permitted to understand the secrets of the Kingdom of Heaven, but others are not. To those who listen to my teaching, more understanding will be given, and they will have an abundance of knowledge. But for those who are not listening, even what little understanding they have will be taken away from them. That is why I use these parables,
For they look, but they don’t really see.
They hear, but they don’t really listen or understand."

And then theres the point, the end of the parable is of Gods grand design, we see the iotas of the Farmer shift to God and in contrast illustrates the depth in our own role as careless farmers in the process of the harvest.

(Matthew 13:24-30)
"Here is another story Jesus told: “The Kingdom of Heaven is like a farmer who planted good seed in his field. But that night as the workers slept, his enemy came and planted weeds among the wheat, then slipped away. When the crop began to grow and produce grain, the weeds also grew.
“The farmer’s workers went to him and said, ‘Sir, the field where you planted that good seed is full of weeds! Where did they come from?’
“‘An enemy has done this!’ the farmer exclaimed. “‘Should we pull out the weeds?’ they asked. “‘No,’ he replied, ‘you’ll uproot the wheat if you do. Let both grow together until the harvest. Then I will tell the harvesters to sort out the weeds, tie them into bundles, and burn them, and to put the wheat in the barn.’”

The workers being the angels of God and the weeds being those who are not listening, the worldly and the wicked, the false prophets and heretics, etc etc,

None of this is culling, Animals have no idea a cull is coming

We can choose now to be weeds or wheat, we can grow regardless of the ground were in, its up to us to find the right soil and then a time will come when weeds and wheat will be separated. Jesus warns all seeds that weeds will be burnt up in a fire. Culling doesnt include a choice, a culling just happens but here we have a choice and we have had it since the first century.

“But blessed are your eyes, because they see; and your ears, because they hear. I tell you the truth, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see, but they didn’t see it. And they longed to hear what you hear, but they didn’t hear it.(Matt 13:16-17)

 

[aspen]

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.

 

[StanJ]

I don't believe when it comes to Christianity we can have more than one kind of fundamentalist belief. I agree that there are all kind of doctrines and dogmas in the Christian church but the fundamentals are normally the same. We can't really focus on exceptions to the rules as there will always be exceptions in some peoples minds. If Christians were to take the 80 to 90 % of what they all agree on and focus on it, the remainder would never be an issue. Sadly many can't or won't do that. I don't really care about how the term is viewed in other religions, as I am a Christian.