Fundamentalism in Christianity

[basics]

Religion according to God's word began by the misinterpretation of a Gospel that was given to Adam, Eve and the serpent as they fell from the grace of God. From that time right up until Noah's day there are no records of there being any religion. For sure we are told that there were men who were righteous before God but they were few in number.

So, just to differenciate between what was to follow and what existed those that were accounted righteous did so by faith that the promise made by God in the garden would come to pass, all else being under the curse of sin. Therefore the very first belief was by faith, faith being a gift through the Holy Ghost to men and women made righteous.

After Noah and his family restarted their lives each of them knew the Gospel some more deeply than others, of that we do know that Noah and Shem were righteous before God, but Ham was not among them. What he passed on to his son Cush and him to Ninus or Nimrod his son, was not the Gospel of grace, rather a gospel of works which is religion.

Now this is important for at least two aspects, one that Genesis is so important and correct because Christianity started by what is written therein, and two, it is what God personally dictated to Moses to be written so that there would be no ambiguity regarding where and why it all began in the minds of the chosen tribes.

By then religion had taken such a hold on the surrounding nations that it appeared there were many gods, yet in truth these gods could be traced back to the one little group of apostates, namely Cush, Semiramis and Ninus or Nimrod. If we look at Abraham we see that he too was mixed up in all this religious nonsense by where he lived until God revealed Himself to him that he upped all his own and left.

Ur in the Chaldeas was like a university town where learning of all sorts took place including the worship of gods so that man Abraham was no stranger to all that, perhaps even attracted by it. It is during that time that God called him out to be separated from many that were his own people then, separated to become another righteous before God.

That is what Christianity is all about, has always been about and will always be about. A people separated to be Holy in God's eyes, signified in type and shadow by the tribes of Israel. We believe what they were given to believe, most failing to do so because of the attraction of religion, just as it is today.

A man or woman born of God, regenerate, born again, does not need proof of God. God is in them just as the writings tell us He would be. Religion born of works needs proof in all sorts of ways especially in things that can be seen and touched and again we only have to look to the Israelites to see that as being a forerunner of what we have today.

But Christianity is not religion. Be under no illusion it is. The Christian does not need outward signs for all his signs are felt deep within and can only be so if God the Comforter dwells within that body. The religious have their idols, their relics, their icons, their beads, their statues, their Mary to replace the most important of all and it shows because there is nothing else.

Talk to a Christian and note how often the name Jesus comes up. Talk to a religious person and note how often the name of Jesus doesn't come up. There is a vast difference between the two. One has God and the other has his rosary, his pictures, his saints but not much else. The only time that Jesus comes up is when quoting one of those. You can see it in these threads if you care to notice. That is religion.

[SigniferOne]

So, just to differenciate between what was to follow and what existed those that were accounted righteous did so by faith that the promise made by God in the garden would come to pass

Where do you get the idea that it was justification by faith, at that point?

Therefore the very first belief was by faith, faith being a gift through the Holy Ghost to men and women made righteous.

It is said he literally spoke to God though. A little different than for you and I.

After Noah and his family restarted their lives each of them knew the Gospel some more deeply than others, of that we do know that Noah and Shem were righteous before God, but Ham was not among them. What he passed on to his son Cush and him to Ninus or Nimrod his son, was not the Gospel of grace, rather a gospel of works which is religion.

Nimrod had hardly had a religion, or a gospel of works.

I really think you've got a whole system here and you're even going to make the Bible fit the system, not to mention the facts of the natural world.

That is what Christianity is all about, has always been about and will always be about. A people separated to be Holy in God's eyes

Sorry this is a Calvinist error that has completely no basis in Scripture. "For God loved the whole world"

A man or woman born of God, regenerate, born again, does not need proof of God.

A man or woman born of God, regenerate, born again, is still a human being. And humans are rational. Jesus didn't just make his followers believe, and died. He showed them the physical miracles, he reappeared on the third day. Why, if all you need is to believe what you're told? Why did he reappear?

Yes, Thomas was unduly skeptical; but was he called "unregenerate" because he wanted to put his hand into the wound just to make sure himself?

Religion born of works needs proof in all sorts of ways especially in things that can be seen and touched and again we only have to look to the Israelites to see that as being a forerunner of what we have today.

If God exists and interfaces with the world, there should be evidence of that. Fingerprints of God need to be everywhere (and they are). I don't know what to think of completely slicing away your rational faculty, of destroying of the whole capacity to think structurally, logically, and require things to make sense; after slicing away of which, wondering why it is so difficult to convey your faith to other people. You have sliced away the faculty that would make your words change minds. But then again you believe in the elect, that those who believe are those who will believe, so it's the kind of tautology that is completely self-sufficient. There is no point in convincing other people, and to hermit away in one's own mind, indifferent and even hostile to the outside world is perfectly justified. It is no different from the old monasticism if you ask me. Classical Calvinists were nothing like this by the way. Poor old Calvin would be shocked to be condemned by you, after having given his proofs of God in the Institutes. The slicing away of reason is a peculiar feature of early 20th century fundamentalists, whose line, I'm sorry to say, you have bought hook, line, and sinker.

[basics]

SigniferOne,

To be born again one has to be washed in the blood of the Lamb slain before the foundations of the world. That some of the writers tell us later that those who are saved were saved by election through grace can only ever be because they were chosen by grace before the worlds were made. Now if we take predetermination out of Scripture then it becomes that there is no elect of God.

If we take it, as it seems you are suggesting, that somehow God is subjective to the whims of men, what that means is that God is not sovereign at all in anything He does because if He falls down on even one aspect of that He falls down on all which is what sinful man wants and what the serpent implied to Eve. That faith itself is a gift from God shows that He is sovereign in every aspect.

So, when you quote, " For God so loved the world ......etc " note first the tense for it is past. From that I take the world as being what was good before the fall as since all creation is in bondage to the curse. But just to go a bit further John implores us not to love the world saying that those who do are not of God. Therefore the quote ends by saying, " whosoever believes on Him shall not perish but have everlasting life. "

Justification is but one of five Hebrew words that all mean made perfect. Righteous being one of them is seen by what God called Abel and since no man can be saved by anything other than faith of Jesus Christ it follows that Abel was Justified by Faith. The book to the Hebrews lists a whole lot more.

Every time I pray I literally speak to God and usually He replies by voice, dream, vision or something standing right out of Scripture at me, never mind an associate or stranger giving me what they had been led to give me by God. Discernment by the Spirit within me and the Scriptures by me tell me whether it is of God or not and as of yet nothing has been not of God.

As regards Ninus or Nimrod, it is quite clear that he never instituted any religion whatsoever, nevertheless being an apostate it is said that he was killed by Shem for that apostasy. Cush on wanting to believe that his son was the one that God predicted at the garden had, along with Semiramis, him deified thus bringing to earth the first religious system.

It became known, according to Hyslop, as the Chaldean Mysteries the adherents of which had to do certain works and continue to do certain works to be accepted into it and continue in it. Oh, I know that there are many who see Hyslop as some kind of weirdo and liar but if you have read him and see the number of others of whom he quotes it is plain that there is more truth than supposed lies.

Where the idea comes from that I am trying to make Scripture fit things not in Scripture could not be further from the truth, because everything I write has but one object to glorify Jesus Christ my Lord and Saviour. Could it be that you think the Gospel is separate from life? The Gospel is about life in this world, it playing its part alongside those that have been saved, are being saved and will be saved.

A Christian having God in him or her, knowing that they have been born again, don't need outward signs such as religion has. I repeat whatever it is they do they do because God is in them directing them along the way and as long as the eyes are on Jesus then they can't go wrong. Take your eyes off Him and then see the stumbling.

Look, be under no illusion that the disciples were born again when Jesus appeared to them. They weren't, the Holy Spirit not having fallen on them at that time. Jesus appeared to them to confirm to them that He was alive having been dead. Thomas was not the only doubter but perhaps the most important because of what he said after being confronted by Jesus. Do you remember what that was? " My Lord and my God."

Yes, they had witnessed many miracles, even said that He was the Christ, the Son of the living God, but they weren't born again at that point. That they were destined, even predestined is without doubt, yet even then they still had many as was seen by their disappearing when He was taken. Aye Peter did hang around but in what capacity? To deny that he knew Him. So please don't tell me I try to make Scripture fit where it doesn't.

The answer to your last statement and me personally is that God is everywhere but not everywhere sees Him nor wants to see Him. Consider that the Gospel is so simple and consider that few ever get to know Him and you seem not to know why? Paul wrote that if the Jews had realised who He was they wouldn't have crucified Him, just so the world which in its fallen state cannot know Him unless the Father reveals Him to any.

Which brings us back to the original which asks what is faith and by whom does it come? Is it by men or is it by God? The Scriptures clearly tell us that it is by God from the beginning at Genesis right through to the eve of the last day in the book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ. I can only repeat what has been given to me yet you infer that I have somehow some sort of struggle to get my faith across to others. From the mail I receive I think it is you who is struggling here.

It becomes quite obvious that you object to much that is in Scripture, perhaps wanting only to hear what itchy ears are said to want. To add it all up, Scripture, me and Calvin are all wrong. That it is written that we are saved by faith of Jesus Christ which is unto all and upon all them that believe, from faith to faith, something given by God, how then are men and women saved by them making any decisions? Indeed how can men and women in bondage ask anything?

[SigniferOne]

it seems you are suggesting, that somehow God is subjective to the whims of men

No, where did I suggest that? He sovereignly waits to see which people will be righteous in him and which ones won't.

That faith itself is a gift from God shows that He is sovereign in every aspect.

Then why are there hundreds of passages exhorting men to have faith, to possess it, or to keep it?

But just to go a bit further John implores us not to love the world saying that those who do are not of God.

What I read is entirely OPPOSITE:

"For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved."

Justification is but one of five Hebrew words that all mean made perfect. Righteous being one of them

I'm surprised, given your interest in Reformed theology it should be common knowledge that justification is a technical term, by no means interchangeable with any others. There are others that sound similar: sanctification, salvation, etc, but they mean totally unrelated things. Thus for example a careful reader of the Bible is able to say that man is justified by faith, but sanctified by works.

Every time I pray I literally speak to God and usually He replies by voice, dream, vision

During the Middle Ages, monks used to go in the desert, starve themselves for weeks straight, and go to such an extent that they would start to see visions in plain sight. I mean they'd start seeing God, the angels, the whole thing. Is that amazing too? Sometimes they would take hallucinogenic drugs if the visions of God didn't come quickly enough.

You know, people who are Hindu have the elephant god Ganeshu come and visit them. Muslims who starve themselves and pray 50 times a day end up seeing Mohammed visit them in their dreams.

I don't trust any revelations other than scripture.

Discernment by the Spirit within me and the Scriptures by me

That is a very dangerous anti-scriptural concept; you're bordering on the Quakers idea. We must accept scripture as the only revelation, because it is the only thing that is reliable and unchangeable.

Where the idea comes from that I am trying to make Scripture fit things not in Scripture could not be further from the truth

From your own statement that you take your own insights to be a valid addition to scripture. From you telling me this whole system completely not found in the Bible, that salvation by faith existed from the beginning of the world and that Abraham and Noah were under it etc. Even fellow Reformed theologians will tell you of covenant theology, the covenant of works, the covenant of grace, etc, the changing conditions of how God interfaces with man. There was no need for faith per se during much of the Biblical era. Adam spoke to God on a regular basis, as did Abraham. God told Noah to build the Ark.

Could it be that you think the Gospel is separate from life? The Gospel is about life in this world, it playing its part alongside those that have been saved, are being saved and will be saved.

Yes Gospel is about life in this world -- science, technology, and rationality. I think it is fully part of life, and I don't think that asking for evidence of God is a perverse or unregenerate idea, from a somehow immoral person. We are rational beings, and we require rational reasons to believe the things we believe.

What's really going on here is that you accept the atheist idea that there are no proofs for God in the visible world, that the whole search would be entirely fruitless, and thus that the whole rational faculty must be suspect in your eyes. It's a vicious circle at the end of which is fanaticism. You need to be able to double-check what you believe, have a sort of a checking system that confirms and verifies that you're doing the right things. Simply believing instantaneously and instantaneously going to do everything you're compelled to is what historically has given Christians a bad name, and caused people to commit unacceptable things.

A Christian having God in him or her, knowing that they have been born again, don't need outward signs such as religion has.

I don't accept your idea that people are just somehow automatically "with God" (i.e. elected to be so), and nothing further needs to be said on that. I reject that completely. I have seen people come to God through slow persuasion, which to me is a much more certain, confident method than a sudden emotional overflow, which has no basis, and endures no scrutiny.

Thomas was not the only doubter but perhaps the most important because of what he said after being confronted by Jesus. Do you remember what that was? " My Lord and my God."

He said that after he stuck his hand in Jesus' wound! To confirm and verify for himself!

He was a little over-skeptical, fine. But did he stop being a disciple, and did he disqualify himself from the ministry by doing that?

The answer to your last statement and me personally is that God is everywhere but not everywhere sees Him nor wants to see Him. Consider that the Gospel is so simple and consider that few ever get to know Him and you seem not to know why? Paul wrote that if the Jews had realised who He was they wouldn't have crucified Him, just so the world which in its fallen state cannot know Him unless the Father reveals Him to any.

Gospel is not simple.

We see this sufficiently in the eyes glazed-over, crazed preachers barking on the streets and in social gatherings, repeating "Jesus, Jesus" and horribly disfiguring any chance people had of becoming Christians, as if Jesus is a magical word that will make all things better, as if all you have to do is invoke it and people's hearts will just melt. Well how is the word Jesus different from Ganeshu, or Mohammed? You have to explain it, you have to explain everything, the Law, the Judgment, before any kind of justification.

The standard education for ministers USED TO, before this ridiculous "gospel is simple" movement, USED TO take 5-10 years. Ministers used to need to be the most learned members of the community just to be able to both understand and explain the Gospel on a meaningful level. Now a lot of Christians are uneducated, they expect to convert by magical invocations that work automatically, and they wonder why they alienate more and more people with their methods.

Which brings us back to the original which asks what is faith and by whom does it come? Is it by men or is it by God? The Scriptures clearly tell us that it is by God from the beginning at Genesis right through to the eve of the last day in the book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ.

No they don't. What they say is that we ought to embrace faith, optative case implying a wish and hopeful possibility, repeating these hopes over and over again throughout the Bible, knowing that we will lose faith from time to time. There is no perseverance of the saints and no unconditional election anywhere there.

It is a thousand pages of text, spelling out 'choose!', in letters made of fire.

[Col. Tartleton]

Bah Religion started when Prometheus Lucifer gave man fire and showed man how to wield it. He instructed us in the arts of civilization and tamed our animal natures to allow our intelligence to be like the creator, as little creators within a greater creation. However from that point forward we would have no free ride, we would have to earn our keep and we would have suffering. To lessen this we tried to bribe the gods. This practice is the origin of religion.

I may as well be a fundamental pagan, it's better written then the OT and tells the same story.

Adam=Epimetheus
Eve=Pandora
Satan=Prometheus
God=Zeus

Same ish. Only the Greek one doesn't imply humans originated via inbreeding or that humans are evil.

[basics]

" I may as well be a fundamental pagan, it's better written then the OT and tells the same story. "

Col Tartleton,

Since the truth of God's work continues even as I write, all across the world as I write, to peoples of all creeds and kinds, I would doubt very much that any religion never mind pagan religions can boast the same supernatural qualities by which that is done. It most definitely is nothing more than a manmade corruption of the original which began with the Chaldean Mysteries.

[basics]

" No, where did I suggest that? He sovereignly waits to see which people will be righteous in him and which ones won't. "

SigniferOne,

As I look down the thread I see at the moment of writing there are five of you all wanting a piece of me, quite literally it seems. So if you will all bear with me I will answer each point made regardless of how long it takes which in my case and situation means long.

To start with, your sentence above infers that it is man and not God who make what is called being righteous. As I said and do not detract from the word means perfection just as do justification, sanctify, perfect, sanctification and salvation. Righteous means, just or lawful, straight or upright, innocent or holy. Sanctify means, make clean or purify, made holy. Perfect means made all of these before. Salvation means made alive or delivered, escape or rescued and protected.

Now God is waiting to see men accomplishing that? Don't be silly man, men cannot accomplish these things. They are in bondage to sin. They are under a curse. They have been handed over to the lusts of their own hearts. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. (Romans 1)

That is the state of all mankind full stop. Jesus (John 15) said, " If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated Me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you." So how do men make themselves righteous? By works, their own doing? No, by faith of Jesus Christ once washed in the blood of salvation.

" Then why are there hundreds of passages exhorting men to have faith, to possess it, or to keep it? "

First and foremost New Testament Scripture is made up of letters sent to churches already established, so let's get that sorted out. Therefore to talk of faith is not inappropriate here as each one who is genuinely born again will have been gifted faith as well as other gifts. Faith ebbs and flows dependent on the circumstances a believer may find themselves in so to exort the weak to seek deeper faith is not so unusual especially as we have direct communication to God. This is a thing found in any church of the body of Christ.

"What I read is entirely OPPOSITE: "For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved."

Having already answered these points I have kept your remark in if only to show you your contradiction. That through Him the world might be saved. Might be saved and through Him. Now you pride yourself on language so where are your faculties now if you cannot see that you have contradicted yourself by thinking to trap me. The world might be saved, not definitely saved, certainly not by those in it, but through Jesus Christ who is God. It is God who justifies.

" I'm surprised, given your interest in Reformed theology it should be common knowledge that justification is a technical term, by no means interchangeable with any others. There are others that sound similar: sanctification, salvation, etc, but they mean totally unrelated things. Thus for example a careful reader of the Bible is able to say that man is justified by faith, but sanctified by works."

One, I have no interest in reformed Theology, the words I refer to were taken from Strong's Concordance and Unger's Bible Dictionary where necessary and they do indeed have much importance concerning the souls of men. We don't need to go into that since I have already given what these books have to say above. That last sentence it would seem is at odds with the Gospel since men cannot be sanctified by works from the sinful state. Blood by faith of Jesus Christ is what sanctifies any unless of course Paul can be added to the list that are wrong.

" During the Middle Ages, monks used to go in the desert, starve themselves for weeks straight, and go to such an extent that they would start to see visions in plain sight. I mean they'd start seeing God, the angels, the whole thing. Is that amazing too? Sometimes they would take hallucinogenic drugs if the visions of God didn't come quickly enough.
You know, people who are Hindu have the elephant god Ganeshu come and visit them. Muslims who starve themselves and pray 50 times a day end up seeing Mohammed visit them in their dreams.
I don't trust any revelations other than scripture."

Firstly I am not from the middle-ages nor do I fast in any way, nor do I take any illegal substances, even legal ones that have that effect so I do take great exception to what you're implying here. But true to form a religious person cannot help but say such things. Remember what they said about the Spirit filled people on the day of Pentecost, that they were under the influence of anything but God. I don't believe you have had any revelations from God as I once did think when you first contacted me and that is really sad.

" I don't accept your idea that people are just somehow automatically "with God" (i.e. elected to be so), and nothing further needs to be said on that. I reject that completely. I have seen people come to God through slow persuasion, which to me is a much more certain, confident method than a sudden emotional overflow, which has no basis, and endures no scrutiny."

Hebrews 2 and 9.

" In bringing many sons to glory, it was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should make the author of their salvation perfect through suffering. Both the one who makes men Holy and those who are made Holy are of one family. So Jesus is not ashamed to cal them brothers." and " Here am I and the children God has given me." and " Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgement, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people...."

May I say that you think you have seen people come to God by slow persuasion. The point is do you actually know any born again believers? Do you know anyone whose life has suddenly been changed completely around? It is written that the Gospel is the power of God, note that word power, unto salvation. And what is that? It is His power to convict any that Jesus Christ died for them as them, note that too, as them, on a cross at Calvary suffering the wrath of Almighty God which was theirs to bear.

In other words were you or they there when they crucified my Lord? If the answer is no then you or them are not born again, are not regenerate and really should not be pontificating about something you know nothing of. I think we can see that from all you write or have written to me and about me is based on what is called the dead letter of Scripture. It is quite clear that had you the Spirit of God in you you wouldn't be making the assertions you do.

" Gospel is not simple. "

I notice you do not say " the Gospel " so I assume that you talk of another gospel, another Jesus and another Spirit as Paul puts it. In fact the Gospel is very simple. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved. Believe in any other gospel and take it for certain you won't be, no that is not quite correct, may not be I should have said, why? Because it is God who justifies and there is no-one alive who can stay the hand of God to place it upon whom He so desires.

Now as for the magical name of Jesus, to you that is how perhaps you see it, but not those who are born again, who are the adopted sons and daughters, even brothers and sisters of God. You see we live by what you call magic something once more that reeks of contradiction on your part. You claim to believe what certain parts of the Bible say through your own intellect yet is it not strange that He died whilst supernaturally washing away the sins ot men and women that covers all time, magically put?

Jesus once said that if we, His followers, had faith the size of a mustard seed we could move mountains. Was that literal or figurative? I mean this was Him as a man who walked on water and even supported Peter as he tried without much faith to do the same. Reason it for yourself. The same man only a little later was raising the dead, cleansing lepers because then he had what he never quite had before. That is the magic that is behind the name of Jesus Christ. Was Peter the only one? No he wasn't and things are no different today.

" No they don't. What they say is that we ought to embrace faith, optative case implying a wish and hopeful possibility, repeating these hopes over and over again throughout the Bible, knowing that we will lose faith from time to time. There is no perseverance of the saints and no unconditional election anywhere there. It is a thousand pages of text, spelling out 'choose!', in letters made of fire. "

So when it is written that it is God who chooses who will be saved and who won't, that writing is wrong? How often have I said that to interpret Scripture the first watchwords are context and flow all pointing to Jesus. 57 times is the word used in Scripture yet only once in the New Testament. Now why would that be? Because when the tribes fell away them only being covered outwardly they were continually being asked to choose between their desires and God. Not so the born again because they have nothing to choose being regenerate. Get the point?

[SigniferOne]

"He sovereignly waits to see which people will be righteous in him and which ones won't. "

To start with, your sentence above infers that it is man and not God who make what is called being righteous.

What my sentence above inferred is that the Bible countless times exhorts man to be righteous. I don't know how else to take it but that it depends on him in some way. Not exclusively, there is a synergism involved. But the view of monergism is un-Biblical.

Now God is waiting to see men accomplishing that? Don't be silly man, men cannot accomplish these things.

Then why are they asked to by Scipture? You are trying to make even the Bible fit your preconceived system. Just like you make the facts of the natural world fit your system, you make the Bible fit your system as well, not the way around.

So how do men make themselves righteous? By works, their own doing?

This is such a typical canard among Calvinists (the few who are still left). Faith is not a work.

"What I read is entirely OPPOSITE: "For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved."

The world might be saved, not definitely saved, certainly not by those in it, but through Jesus Christ who is God. It is God who justifies.

No it didn't say that justification is by God; it said that justification is through God, by faith within man.

There's that 'simple Gospel' eh?

May I say that you think you have seen people come to God by slow persuasion. The point is do you actually know any born again believers?

They were born-again with a new outlook on life, but they were not "Born Again Christians" of your kind. Nor were any Christians at any time in English history, prior to your 20th century innovation, which argues that God must literally "visit" you. This innovation is malicious and argues that conversion must of necessity come with a "visit from God", and if it hasn't then the person isn't really a Christian. Yet you take offence at things that I say!

What you propound has never been the normal conversion experience, in the entire history of Christians. Here is just one example, a passage from Richard Baxter who was the most important and prominent Puritan minister of 17th century England:

As for those Doubts of my own Salvation, which exercised me many years, the chiefest Causes of them were these:

1. Because I could not distinctly trace the Workings of the Spirit upon my heart in that method which some authors describe; nor knew the Time of my Conversion, being wrought on by the forementioned Degrees. But since then I understood that the Soul is in too dark and passionate a plight at first, to be able to keep an exact account f the order of its own Operations; and the preparatory Grace being sometimes longer and sometimes shorter, and the first degree of Special Grace being usually very small, it is not possible for one of very many should be able to give any true account of the just Time when Special Grace began.

2. My second Doubt was as aforesaid, because of the hardness of my heart, or want of such lively Apprehensions of Things Spritual, which I had about Thngs Corporal. And though I still groan under this as my sin and want, yet I now perceive that a Soul in Flesh doth work so much after the manner of the Flesh, that it much desireth sensible Apprehensions; but Things Spiritual and Distant are not so apt to work upon them, and to stir the Passions, as Things present and sensible are; and that the Rational Operations of the higher Faculties (the Intellect and Will) may without so much passion, set God and Things Spiritual highest within us, and give them the preeminence.

I understood at last that God breaketh not all Men's hearts alike, and that the gradual proceedings of his Grace might be one cause, and my Nature not apt to weep for other Things another: and that the Change of our Heart from Sin to God is true Repentance.

http://www.archive.org/stream/reliqu...e/n33/mode/2up

What an inconceivable gulf exists between that old-time Christian and you: his slow conversion; his genuine and heartfelt self-doubt rather than the blind self-sanctification you project; his sudden encomium of Reason and Intellect; and everything else.

I don't believe you have had any revelations from God as I once did think when you first contacted me and that is really sad.

You better believe I don't, and proud of it!! I don't believe in superstitions.

What you present in this thread is a fictitious form of Christianity, that has never been normal to Christianity in its whole history. From the very beginning, from the 1st century AD, Christians engaged in disputations, used arguments and reasons. They did not fall back on your tautological reasoning where "If I have it, I have it, and if I don't, I don't"! They did not hold forth your citing some sort of pretended revelation within themselves, and condemning all that didn't have such revelations. Only prophets have revelations; I'm not a prophet, and I'm sorry to say -- neither are you.

The fact is that normal proper Christians throughout history have been able to articulate their faith, to convert the minds and hearts of others. Yet just as that old faith is now almost invisible behind the rubble of "new" innovations that further and further abandon the classical ideal of a Christian of highest intellect, you, bucking that ideal, profess a newer 20th century model of Christianity, based on your own inner visions. You're unable to convey your views to other people, and your faith will die with you. Which is what makes me very sad.

[The Million Dollar Prons]

Religion according to God's word began by the misinterpretation of a Gospel that was given to Adam, Eve and the serpent as they fell from the grace of God. From that time right up until Noah's day there are no records of there being any religion. For sure we are told that there were men who were righteous before God but they were few in number.

You sure about that bro? I remember the religion being transmitted orally but Abraham being the only one that seriously listened to God's word. I need to read Genesis Exodus again.

After Noah and his family restarted their lives each of them knew the Gospel some more deeply than others, of that we do know that Noah and Shem were righteous before God, but Ham was not among them. What he passed on to his son Cush and him to Ninus or Nimrod his son, was not the Gospel of grace, rather a gospel of works which is religion.

Now this is important for at least two aspects, one that Genesis is so important and correct because Christianity started by what is written therein, and two, it is what God personally dictated to Moses to be written so that there would be no ambiguity regarding where and why it all began in the minds of the chosen tribes.

The problem is you're saying that the "gospel of works" is wrong and what was dictated to Moses is right, but then Moses wrote Leviticus and that sure seems like works to me.

That is what Christianity is all about, has always been about and will always be about. A people separated to be Holy in God's eyes, signified in type and shadow by the tribes of Israel. We believe what they were given to believe, most failing to do so because of the attraction of religion, just as it is today.

But Christianity has always been a "religion" as you describe. The early Church had a hierarchy and if the didache and the writings of early christianity are to be trusted they practiced formal liturgy.

A man or woman born of God, regenerate, born again, does not need proof of God.

I must not be a man of God then because I love the fact that God can be reasoned by morality and proven in the lives of the faithful.

God is in them just as the writings tell us He would be.

So what you're saying is, Islam is the true religion because I don't need proof of God, he's in the koran just as the Koran tells us he would be.

Religion born of works needs proof in all sorts of ways especially in things that can be seen and touched and again we only have to look to the Israelites to see that as being a forerunner of what we have today.

Well, yeah, we're supposed to worship God with all 5 of our senses. Seeing and touching are at least two!

The Christian does not need outward signs for all his signs are felt deep within and can only be so if God the Comforter dwells within that body.

Then why did the early church baptise with water.

The religious have their idols, their relics, their icons, their beads, their statues, their Mary to replace the most important of all and it shows because there is nothing else.

NOT THE VIRGIN MARY, ANYTHING BUT THE VIRGIN MARY.

Talk to a religious person and note how often the name of Jesus doesn't come up.

The didache sure mentions him a lot.

One has God and the other has his rosary, his pictures, his saints but not much else.

Ya know after reading your posts I'm under the impression that you refuse to acknowledge what the rosary is, what icons are for, and what saints even are.

The only time that Jesus comes up is when quoting one of those. You can see it in these threads if you care to notice. That is religion.

Frickin' Jesus, how dare he be in the Rosary.

[basics]

" You sure about that bro? I remember the religion being transmitted orally but Abraham being the only one that seriously listened to God's word. I need to read Genesis Exodus again."

The Million Dollar Prons,

And while you're at it carefully read the book to the Hebrews. The written word did not come until God gave Moses what to put on parchment so all that went before was oral. Remember too that Abraham was not the first to hear God's voice, that coming down to Adam when in the garden.

" The problem is you're saying that the "gospel of works" is wrong and what was dictated to Moses is right, but then Moses wrote Leviticus and that sure seems like works to me."

That is quite true, it was a gospel of works but one under the Law that stated a man if he kept every aspect of it all the days of his life without sinning, he would see heaven, otherwise he dies in his sin. We know that no man outside of God in the flesh, Jesus Christ, ever fulfilled every aspect of the Law thus proving that works do not save anyone. We needed pure blood in the shape of Jesus Christ to accomplish what we ourselves couldn't.

" But Christianity has always been a "religion" as you describe. The early Church had a hierarchy and if the didache and the writings of early christianity are to be trusted they practiced formal liturgy. "

No, Christianity is nothing but faith stiffened by the indwelling of God the Comforter to lead us onwards towards the land that is not of this fallen world. It is quite separate from religion the very essence of which Jesus found Himself to be continually at loggerheads with. For sure Paul laid out certain procedures for the church but these were nothing compared to what we see around us nowadays.

" I must not be a man of God then because I love the fact that God can be reasoned by morality and proven in the lives of the faithful. "

When I said that the Christian does not need proof of God, I meant outward proof, because the regenerate already has God dwelling in him or her. That does not mean and was never meant to mean that we do not look for God in the things we see or do, of course we do. The point is that we don't need idols, rosaries, icons, relics and saints, even Mary as they have nothing to do with our salvation or anyone elses for that matter, the purpose of our being disciples.

" So what you're saying is, Islam is the true religion because I don't need proof of God, he's in the koran just as the Koran tells us he would be."

Come on, that is not what I imply at all. Islam is a religion with no legality at all to claim what it does as anyone who have read my postings can verify. If you as a regenerate, born again believer, has God in you, what further proof do you need? Remember there is only one faith, one Lord and one Spirit and all these are in Jesus Christ and nothing else.

" Well, yeah, we're supposed to worship God with all 5 of our senses. Seeing and touching are at least two! "

According to Scripture, with all our hearts and all our minds. I can't place in the Bible what you seem to be saying so can you give book, chapter and verse on that?

" Then why did the early church baptise with water. "

Churches still baptise with water on the wrong assumption that this procedure makes the recipient a Christian, a born again one, based on Jesus words about going out into the world preaching and baptising in His name. We know or should be able to know the difference between water baptism and the regeneration baptism of the Holy Ghost because it is through the latter that born again Christianity stands on.

Once a person has been regenerate then they are baptised in water as a sign, note that, a sign, to the world that they like Jesus have risen from the grave and therefore belong to Him. Be under no illusion that water saves because it doesn't as John the Baptist made clear to those that he did baptise, which by the way was to prepare the people for the real thing which came about at Pentecost.

" NOT THE VIRGIN MARY, ANYTHING BUT THE VIRGIN MARY."

Look, Mary was surely blessed of God but again be under no illusion that she was somehow divine. On at least two occasions she was told that she herself would need the Saviour whom she carried and gave birth to. Note also that because she was still under Jewish law unclean after blood shedding at the birth that itself proves her status as no more than another sinner beside the fact that she bore several more children by natural means. She was saved at Pentecost with all the others.

" Ya know after reading your posts I'm under the impression that you refuse to acknowledge what the rosary is, what icons are for, and what saints even are."

I refuse to acknowledge what is not in Scripture for the salvation of men and women. The very things you mention are quite contrary to the second commandment. They are manmade, graven, images, no more and no less. He is not in the rosary anymore than He is in the bread and wine but I would be glad to set you straight on that another time.

[The Million Dollar Prons]

Basics, the problem is that you've created a false dichotomy. You've fallen into the illusion that good works and faith are in two seperate buildings across the street, and to get to one you have to run across rush hour traffic. They come hand in hand.

The jews had their rights not because they were spiritually dead religious, but because their rites came with their faith. They did it because they believed it did forgive them their sins, as God promised them.

Now you say that,

No, Christianity is nothing but faith stiffened by the indwelling of God the Comforter to lead us onwards towards the land that is not of this fallen world. It is quite separate from religion the very essence of which Jesus found Himself to be continually at loggerheads with. For sure Paul laid out certain procedures for the church but these were nothing compared to what we see around us nowadays.

But I think that's wrong in the context of the scriptures. Jesus established a church with a hierarchy. All throughout acts they did things that a hierarchal church would do. They appointed a new apostle to fill Judas' spot, they baptised with water and laid hands on people, and sometimes the people weren't "regenerated" until they had a proper laying on of hands, they sent presbyters to certain areas to anoint the sick with oil, they heard eachothers confessions, they wrote letters to eachother explaining how to perform the Lord's Supper, they had ecumencial councils.

Not only does it sound like everything that's still going on today. This is all stuff that's in the bible that Christ himself started.

Come on, that is not what I imply at all. Islam is a religion with no legality at all to claim what it does as anyone who have read my postings can verify. If you as a regenerate, born again believer, has God in you, what further proof do you need? Remember there is only one faith, one Lord and one Spirit and all these are in Jesus Christ and nothing else.

Because what if we took your same argument and put it with Islam. "I'm a regenerate believer of Allah, the only true faith. I don't need any outward proof, it lives inside me, and my scriptures back it up."

According to Scripture, with all our hearts and all our minds. I can't place in the Bible what you seem to be saying so can you give book, chapter and verse on that?

I'm too rich to write my own content so I'm just linking now.

Senses are part of your mind.

Churches still baptise with water on the wrong assumption that this procedure makes the recipient a Christian, a born again one, based on Jesus words about going out into the world preaching and baptising in His name. We know or should be able to know the difference between water baptism and the regeneration baptism of the Holy Ghost because it is through the latter that born again Christianity stands on.

But what about that guy in Acts who didn't get "regenerated" until he was properly baptised? Sure seems like water is a part of it. That or Christians have literally been botching one of their basic sacraments for over 2,000 years.

I refuse to acknowledge what is not in Scripture for the salvation of men and women. The very things you mention are quite contrary to the second commandment. They are manmade, graven, images, no more and no less. He is not in the rosary anymore than He is in the bread and wine but I would be glad to set you straight on that another time.

I'd answer this but I already answered this to you in another thread, but I'm pretty sure you read it and said "NO. ONLY I AM ALLOWED TO BE CORRECT." It's a well known fact that saints and icons aren't worshiped, and thus aren't graven images.

And yes, Jesus is in the rosary because he's always in our prayers. Saying he's not is like saying "YOUR PRAYERS ARE INVALID, YOU ARE ONLY ALLOWED THESE CERTAIN PRAYERS," which is like wut.


And one last thing. I'm very much looking forward to seeing you set me straight on Jesus in the bread and wine, considering 1 Corinthians says he is.

[basics]

" Basics, the problem is that you've created a false dichotomy. You've fallen into the illusion that good works and faith are in two seperate buildings across the street, and to get to one you have to run across rush hour traffic. They come hand in hand.

The jews had their rights not because they were spiritually dead religious, but because their rites came with their faith. They did it because they believed it did forgive them their sins, as God promised them. "

The Million Dollar Prons,

Romans 4:14 states,

" For if those who live by Law are heirs, faith has no value and the promise is worthless, because Law brings wrath."

Now the Law demands works, it demands that every person under it, whether Moses' or natural, have to remain in it without sinning through all of their lives or else the wrath of the Law brings death. Since no man outside of Jesus Christ could boast such a thing then all who are under Law were and are conemned to die as sinners.

No, the Israelites were given the rituals every other day to keep them under the umbrella of Holiness because they were not regenerate apart from those that it is written of as being righteous in the eyes of God. Their depth of sin made it so that they were continually falling away having to repeat the rituals all the days of their lives, most of them dying in sin.

Can't you understand that the rituals were works, the very opposite of grace by which any man or woman can only be saved by? For the main the Jews had no faith. In fact that is why they in particular needed signs and wonders to keep their attention. Even when Jesus Christ gave them all the signs and wonders anyone would need to believe they still didn't, why? Because they had no faith, they needed works and works saves no-one.

Don't let that however confuse you because we who are born again know that from that point on good works is an established fact in and around our new lives. Then works become important because whatever we do in front of others must show the love of Jesus Christ who is in us now but wasn't before we were made regenerate. In other words our works always point the receiver to Jesus.

" But I think that's wrong in the context of the scriptures. Jesus established a church with a hierarchy. All throughout acts they did things that a hierarchal church would do. They appointed a new apostle to fill Judas' spot, they baptised with water and laid hands on people, and sometimes the people weren't "regenerated" until they had a proper laying on of hands, they sent presbyters to certain areas to anoint the sick with oil, they heard eachothers confessions, they wrote letters to eachother explaining how to perform the Lord's Supper, they had ecumencial councils."

People can only be regenerate when the Holy Ghost falls on them to indwell them, because that itself is proof of them having been born again. God cannot dwell where sin still is. Once you establish that then the flow and context become a little clearer. They did indeed do all the things commanded of them and yes they did have a separation of functions within the church according to the gifts given by the Holy Spirit to each believer.

But for the love of Pete don't imply that that is what we see in the systems of today for it is not. Outside of the Baptist, Brethren and some others, these systems baptise with water saying that the recipients are now born again Christians which they cannot possibly be because there has been no conviction. In the case of the Roman Catholic church the baby is already sacred so how can one become more sacred at water baptism? And why are so many of these sacred beings now atheists as seen on these threads?

" Because what if we took your same argument and put it with Islam. "I'm a regenerate believer of Allah, the only true faith. I don't need any outward proof, it lives inside me, and my scriptures back it up." "

Islam has no regeneration, why? Because each believer is taught that if they do good works perhaps God will have mercy on them, note that word, mercy. They know that they need mercy but they have no-one to give them that, again why? Because God gave Moses the Law that demands blood for sin, not mercy. Jesus Christ is their mercy but they don't accept Him. So please stop bringing Islam into the debate about Jesus Christ because to them He is no more than a lesser prophet to Mohammed.

“ And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.” – Mark 12:30.

Is that not more or less what I said? The Orthodox like the Roman priests give the idea that only they have the power of interpretation which rather obliges the Holy Ghost to remain quiet within them that He dwells, yet, for as far as the Scriptures are concerned each believer can rely on that Person in whatever they do including the most important thing of all, knowing the Scriptures.

" But what about that guy in Acts who didn't get "regenerated" until he was properly baptised? Sure seems like water is a part of it. That or Christians have literally been botching one of their basic sacraments for over 2,000 years. "

Look, did the thief on the cross get immersed in water? No, he did not so how was he saved? Because he believed that Jesus had a kingdom to go to and when He was in it perhaps it would be possible for Him to remember him, the thief. Now that was faith seen by words which could only have come from the Father. Therefore since Jesus then told him that he would be in paradise by that night he the thief could only get there if he was born again.

As for the fellow you speak of please give book, chapter and verse.

" I'd answer this but I already answered this to you in another thread, but I'm pretty sure you read it and said "NO. ONLY I AM ALLOWED TO BE CORRECT." It's a well known fact that saints and icons aren't worshiped, and thus aren't graven images.
And yes, Jesus is in the rosary because he's always in our prayers. Saying he's not is like saying "YOUR PRAYERS ARE INVALID, YOU ARE ONLY ALLOWED THESE CERTAIN PRAYERS," which is like wut. "

Exodus 20:3 and 4 state,

" You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them, for I the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to thousands who love me and keep my commandments."

The next verse says that to do so misuses His name and the perpetrators will be held guilty. But the main point in the above is His wording namely worship or bow down to. Is there any doubt that the Orthodox as well as the Roman Catholics do bow down to if not worship that which draws their attention? Do they not also have the habit of kissing that which they say they do not worship? Are the remonstrations meant to appease a jealous God just because they say they are not worshipping quite obviously that which they are? You see what is written therefore obey it.

" I'd answer this but I already answered this to you in another thread, but I'm pretty sure you read it and said "NO. ONLY I AM ALLOWED TO BE CORRECT." It's a well known fact that saints and icons aren't worshiped, and thus aren't graven images.
And yes, Jesus is in the rosary because he's always in our prayers. Saying he's not is like saying "YOUR PRAYERS ARE INVALID, YOU ARE ONLY ALLOWED THESE CERTAIN PRAYERS," which is like wut. "

The prayer that Jesus commended to the disciples covers what is expected of a believer in loving his neighbour as himself done in the name of Jesus Christ. Does that mean that we have no other requests to make of God? Of course it doesn't and so we make our requests also known to Him, the strange thing about that is that He already knows what we are about to ask. I have never ever uttered what you have put in print. What I have said about prayer is what John writes which is that God does not listen to the prayers of sinners.

Boy, if Jesus is not in your heart, be sure that He is not in any piece of idolatry either. It appears that you do not understand what graven means. It means something made by the hand of man, fashioned, carved, sculpted or painted, so the things you treasure like the rosary, being made by men and said to contain God, are idols by any standards so you can make as many excuses as you want but remember you don't have to answer to me.

" And one last thing. I'm very much looking forward to seeing you set me straight on Jesus in the bread and wine, considering 1 Corinthians says he is. "

No, you only think like your compatriots that He is in the bread and wine so I look forward to opening your eyes. But before that go to Mathew, Mark, Luke and John and read carefully what you see and then ask me for that confrontation.

[Pontifex Maximus]

Your logic is holey.

SigniferOne,

To be born again one has to be washed in the blood of the Lamb slain before the foundations of the world.

What. The. .

So, just to differenciate between what was to follow and what existed those that were accounted righteous did so by faith that the promise made by God in the garden would come to pass, all else being under the curse of sin. Therefore the very first belief was by faith, faith being a gift through the Holy Ghost to men and women made righteous.

I have faith you are wrong. My divine gift validates my belief and makes it truth. Now what?

After Noah and his family restarted their lives each of them knew the Gospel some more deeply than others, of that we do know that Noah and Shem were righteous before God, but Ham was not among them. What he passed on to his son Cush and him to Ninus or Nimrod his son, was not the Gospel of grace, rather a gospel of works which is religion.

Except that event never occurred.

By then religion had taken such a hold on the surrounding nations that it appeared there were many gods, yet in truth these gods could be traced back to the one little group of apostates, namely Cush, Semiramis and Ninus or Nimrod. If we look at Abraham we see that he too was mixed up in all this religious nonsense by where he lived until God revealed Himself to him that he upped all his own and left.

Except those polytheistic religions predate any form of Judaism.

But Christianity is not religion.

Yes it is.

The Christian does not need outward signs for all his signs are felt deep within and can only be so if God the Comforter dwells within that body.

So why did Jesus perform miracles then?

Conclusion:

basics, I don't know how you have done this, but you have made christianity sound weirder than scientology.

[Gordon Freynman]

I have faith you are wrong. My divine gift validates my belief and makes it truth. Now what?

Is your faith based upon a collection of stories written by sheepherders who claim to have been divinely inspired? If not, then you lose.

[basics]

" Is your faith based upon a collection of stories written by sheepherders who claim to have been divinely inspired? If not, then you lose. "

Comrade Wiggum,

All that you have learned is based on someone's experiences so what makes sheepherders any less reliable especially if what they said then continues to happen today in the lives of many who don't happen to have anything to do with sheep?

[Gordon Freynman]

All that you have learned is based on someone's experiences so what makes sheepherders any less reliable especially if what they said then continues to happen today in the lives of many who don't happen to have anything to do with sheep?

Accounts that are based solely on witness testimony are not reliable.

[basics]

" Accounts that are based solely on witness testimony are not reliable. "

Comrade Wiggum,

Yet the justice system in Scotland works by two or more witnesses, that being the reason that two policemen must be present when anyone is charged with an offence. That is why it is written that God pre-empted all that by proposing the same procedure way back when the Law was introduced.

If we look to the witnesses I am talking of as per the ones in the Bible as well as those of today all of them have one common thread which is prevalent in their experiences, the Man Jesus Christ. Their evidence is what they once were, witnessed by those that knew them then, what they have become, witnessed by the same much in most cases to their disgust. To say that is not evidence is silly don't you think?

[basics]

" I have faith you are wrong. My divine gift validates my belief and makes it truth. Now what? "

Pontifex Maximus,

Then you will oblige us by telling us how you got this faith?

" Except that event never occurred. "

Your answer to the flood and yet all those of faith as are in the Bible accepted wholeheartedly that Noah and the flood story was quite true. Therefore by testing through the Scripture and the Spirit who inspired what is written therein you have no faith at all, hence the above.

" Except those polytheistic religions predate any form of Judaism. "

Now how can that be? Moses gave us from the mind of God the beginning, the fall, the flood and then your silly religions so how do they come before that? But then can I suggest you read the Two Babylons, for nothing other than to find that many many experts in these things are put together by Hyslop to prove you wrong in your assumption.

" So why did Jesus perform miracles then? "

I'll answer your remark about Christianity first as being a religion. On that you are quite wrong. And the reason Jesus performed miracles among other signs and wonders was because the tribes of Israel had no faith, they relied on signs and wonders. It was to them that He primarily came, was confronted by their religion which denied Him even though He performed these things. They were bound by the Law that was supposed to free them but it couldn't. That is why He said that He could set them free.

It only sounds weird to those that haven't got the Spirit of God in them. I break down the association behind what separates man from God by showing the differences as written in the lives of the tribes, their rituals and the Law. To understand these things is to understand the tribes which is important if we are to understand Christianity, but these things are not important to be a Christian.

That comes about as it has always done, by God revealing Jesus Christ to the recipient that He has happened to call out. Who is it that God does call out? Well in the Old Testament it was mostly people who didn't particularly have any desire to do what God was doing to them. But in most cases it was people who had reached the end of their tether and if they hadn't quite reached that He made sure they did.

As king David wrote God finds pleasure to save those with a broken and contrite heart. That is the revealing of Jesus Christ's actions on the cross for them, as them, which brings on what the believer knows as conviction or guilt laden conscience. To you that may well be confusing, but to the believer who has been made regenerate, he or she will know exactly what I am saying.

All that said, the Gospel tells us that if you believe on Jesus Christ you will be saved but as Peter also said that number is as many as the Lord God shall call. So the act of salvation is one that the three Persons of the Trinity all have their part to play, the recipient in a position where he or she doesn't have to do anything at all except receive the grace of God with thanksgiving many asking themselves, why me?

Now I know nothing of scientology nor do I want to. My concern is for the souls of all men and women who for religious reasons don't know the Scriptures meaning that they are content to leave their future to that religion and its priests. From what I read on these threads there is much work to be done, but it doesn't come without a price because religion always kicks back. This I can promise you, that when I am unable to speak on these threads any longer, another will rise up to repeat, to carry, on what I am doing.

[SigniferOne]

People I don't think this rude commentary devoid of content is really necessary here, or does you any credit. Especially the moderators.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Well, we can't really blame the Puritans, can we? They tried desperately to shun away the inherent personalistic mysticism of all Western Christianity, they ended up looking at mere reason and mere physicalism as their answers. Thus the result was David Hume.

Lol.

BTW, the Gospels have a good degree of historical authenticity. A lot of ancient historians have to rely on far less sources, sometimes only one or fragments of one dispersed across many works.