DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Religious Convictions
HTML https://religiousconvictions.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Religious Discussions
*****************************************************
#Post#: 2828--------------------------------------------------
Re: Born Again
By: Kerry Date: August 8, 2015, 2:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I have more questions. I have already objected to making
finding the "strait and narrow way" look easy, basing that on
what Jesus said about "few" finding it.
But what of this where Jesus talks about a servant who does not
use what he was given?
Matthew 25:24 Then he which had received the one talent came and
said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where
thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:
25 And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth:
lo, there thou hast that is thine.
26 His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful
servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather
where I have not strawed:
27 Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the
exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine
own with usury.
28 Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him
which hath ten talents.
29 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall
have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away
even that which he hath.
30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness:
there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
There are several questions which rise out of that story.
First, why does Jesus expect more back from us than he gives?
This appears contrary to what many say, that Jesus did it all,
we can never repay him, there's nothing we can do, etc. Why
does Jesus mention usury, a practice frowned upon by the Old
Testament in some circumstances but allowable in others?
Deuteronomy 23:19 Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother;
usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of any thing that is
lent upon usury:
20 Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy
brother thou shalt not lend upon usury: that the Lord thy God
may bless thee in all that thou settest thine hand to in the
land whither thou goest to possess it.
---------------------------
Then there is the story of the man whose debt was forgiven who
then did not forgive another a much smaller debt.
Matthew 18:32 Then his lord, after that he had called him, said
unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt,
because thou desiredst me:
33 Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy
fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee?
34 And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors,
till he should pay all that was due unto him.
35 So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye
from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their
trespasses.
Can our sins be handed back to us, reinstated? I say yes, they
can. If God removes the burdens of our sins from us at baptism,
we still have problems. We are supposed to work things out by
finding the sinful urges in ourselves and being willing to
extirpate them. It may be a struggle, we may fall time and
again stumbling along; but we must always firmly wish to have
such urges removed from us. We also must not refuse to forgive
others of the same things. If we fail to do this, the burdens
or stains of sins are returned to us since we failed to use the
temporary carrying of our burdens by Jesus to good purpose.
There is no free lunch in this world or the world to come. We
can carry each others' burdens too temporarily if and when they
are too weak to do it on their own; and other people can do that
for us too. Yes, we can do to a certain extent what Jesus does
for us if we are willing to bear some burdens of others; and he
calls this the "law of Christ".
Galatians 6:2 Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the
law of Christ.
3 For if a man think himself to be something, when he is
nothing, he deceiveth himself.
4 But let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have
rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another.
5 For every man shall bear his own burden.
In the end, Jesus cannot repent for us. He can however lighten
the load for us so we aren't so overwhelmed by spiritual debt we
couldn't make any progress. Could any of us be saved if he did
not do this for us? Still, he expects us to mature so we can
start bearing our own burdens; and Heaven keeps track of our
sins and they can be reinstated if we do not perform as
expected. The stain can be put back.
I believe it is only after we finally master our sinful urges
that God can pronounce us clean and say He will not remember our
sins anymore. The law of Christ says he will bear our burdens
for a while when we are weak but in the end we will all have to
bear our own.
I can see saying we are born of water after baptism; but I don't
think we are born of the Spirit until we are strong enough to
take up our own crosses to follow Jesus, crucifying the false
ideas and urges of "self" of the serpent.
#Post#: 2830--------------------------------------------------
Re: Born Again
By: Kerry Date: August 9, 2015, 1:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=CatholicCrusader link=topic=317.msg2813#msg2813
date=1438878794]
So, the way to arbitrate two opposing views is: What did the
first Christians do; what did the early leaders of the Church,
taught by the apostles themselves, do:
Hermas
"‘I have heard, sir,’ said I [to the Shepherd], ‘from some
teacher, that there is no other repentance except that which
took place when we went down into the water and obtained the
remission of our former sins.’ He said to me, ‘You have heard
rightly, for so it is’" (The Shepherd 4:3:1–2 [A.D. 80]).
water for his own salvation" (Homilies11:26 [A.D. 217]).
[/quote]"The Shepherd" appears to be private revelations.
While it was popular in some early Christian quarters, I still
don't know what to make of the book. I don't have any real
objection to the following passage myself since I have only
partially formed views on this; but some people may.
The holy, pre-existent Spirit, that created every creature, God
made to dwell in flesh, which He chose. This flesh, accordingly,
in which the Holy Spirit dwelt, was nobly subject to that
Spirit, walking religiously and chastely, in no respect defiling
the Spirit; and accordingly, after living excellently and
purely, and after labouring and co-operating with the Spirit,
and having in everything acted vigorously and courageously along
with the Holy Spirit, He assumed it as a partner with it. For
this conduct of the flesh pleased Him, because it was not
defiled on the earth while having the Holy Spirit. He took,
therefore, as fellow-councillors His Son and the glorious
angels, in order that this flesh, which had been subject to the
body without a fault, might have some place of tabernacle, and
that it might not appear that the reward [of its servitude had
been lost ], for the flesh that has been found without spot or
defilement, in which the Holy Spirit dwelt, [will receive a
reward ]. You have now the explanation of this parable also."
I have no real objection to that myself as I said; but it
appears to be a private revelation to me.
Tertullian, whom you also quote, seemed not to hold a favorable
opinion of The Shepherd
HTML http://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2011/11/tertullians-attitude-toward-shepherd-of.html.<br
/>
It seems that Tertullian (after he became a Montanist) did not
like the work known as the Shepherd of Hermas because of his
stance on repentance and adultery. Tertullian neither regarded
the Shepherd as Scripture nor as law (LEX). He wrote:
"It [the Shepherd of Hermas] is a story, not a law" (De Orat
XVI, 2). This comment shows that Tertullian did not view the
Shepherd in the same light that he viewed Scripture, and his
view of this work appears to have been correct in certain
respects. (See Jean Danielou 3:153.)
I say, in certain respects, since the Shepherd is not a part of
inspired Scripture and never was--yet Tertullian apparently had
an unbalanced view of godly repentance. Moreover, I am not so
sure he was right to believe that the Shepherd condones
adultery. See Mandate 4 of the Shepherd.
When I read that section, it doesn't look to me as if The
Shepherd is condoing adultery at all.
Sign me confused.
#Post#: 2834--------------------------------------------------
Re: Born Again
By: Piper Date: August 9, 2015, 4:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
bookmarking . . .
looks interesting, out of time
#Post#: 2852--------------------------------------------------
Re: Born Again
By: CatholicCrusader Date: August 11, 2015, 10:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Kerry link=topic=317.msg2830#msg2830
date=1439145153]
"The Shepherd" appears to be private revelations. While it
was popular in some early Christian quarters, I still don't
know what to make of the book. I don't have any real
objection to the following passage myself since I have only
partially formed views on this; but some people
may...........[/quote]
Well here is the thing: I am not quoting it because it is
actual revelation - - the purpose here is to see what the first
Christians though and practiced. It need not be divinely
inspired writing to be a window into the past to see what people
believed.
#Post#: 2856--------------------------------------------------
Re: Born Again
By: Kerry Date: August 11, 2015, 2:56 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=CatholicCrusader link=topic=317.msg2852#msg2852
date=1439305916]
Well here is the thing: I am not quoting it because it is
actual revelation - - the purpose here is to see what the first
Christians though and practiced. It need not be divinely
inspired writing to be a window into the past to see what people
believed.
[/quote]The Gnostic books were written by people who believed
what they wrote; and what good is that? Saying a book is a
window into past beliefs doesn't help that much unless we can
see there is a connection between the author and an Apostle.
Relying on Hermas the Shepherd raises the awkward question of
why there would be a need for a revelation if it was already
part of the Apostolic Tradition.
.
#Post#: 2860--------------------------------------------------
Re: Born Again
By: CatholicCrusader Date: August 12, 2015, 1:57 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Kerry link=topic=317.msg2856#msg2856
date=1439322980]
The Gnostic books were written by people who believed what
they wrote; and what good is that? Saying a book is a window
into past beliefs doesn't help that much unless we can see
there is a connection between the author and an Apostle.
Relying on Hermas the Shepherd raises the awkward question of
why there would be a need for a revelation if it was already
part of the Apostolic Tradition. [/quote]
Well, why would you even compare the Gnostic writings to the
fathers in the first place? I mean, the writings of early
century Jews or Pagans or Gnostics or whoever mean nothing. But
the writings of the Church fathers are important.
While the Church Fathers were not infallible, their widespread
consensus on issues should give weight to the theological
positions they advanced. It is in their common teaching, or
consensus, the Fathers infallibly witness to authentic doctrine.
In attempting to defend a particular doctrine, one should cite
not just one father but many and from as wide a geographical and
cultural range as possible in order to demonstrate this
consensus patrum. Granted, I didn't quote a bunch, but I did
not quote Hermas the Shepherd in isolation either. I decided
not to quote a tomb of early fathers quotes for the sake of
brevity.
#Post#: 2861--------------------------------------------------
Re: Born Again
By: Kerry Date: August 12, 2015, 4:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=CatholicCrusader link=topic=317.msg2860#msg2860
date=1439405867]
Well, why would you even compare the Gnostic writings to the
fathers in the first place? I mean, the writings of early
century Jews or Pagans or Gnostics or whoever mean nothing. But
the writings of the Church fathers are important.[/quote]I don't
begin by making the assumption that someone is an authentic
Church father if he agrees with me or that he is a heretic if he
doesn't. I look at what I can see. What I see in this case is
[quote]While the Church Fathers were not infallible, their
widespread consensus on issues should give weight to the
theological positions they advanced. It is in their common
teaching, or consensus, the Fathers infallibly witness to
authentic doctrine. In attempting to defend a particular
doctrine, one should cite not just one father but many and from
as wide a geographical and cultural range as possible in order
to demonstrate this consensus patrum. Granted, I didn't quote a
bunch, but I did not quote Hermas the Shepherd in isolation
either. I decided not to quote a tomb of early fathers quotes
for the sake of brevity.[/quote]
For all I know, one person could have written something wrong
and later generations followed him. How do I know if Hermas
the Shepherd introduced an error and the other people who came
later repeated it? In my mind, the validity of Tradition,
where it can be established, depends on an unbroken series of
connections with the Apostles. It cannot depend on someone
having a revelation.
We could also discuss Hippolytus. How much should we trust him
when he is considered to be the first antipope? He accused Pope
Pope Zephyrinus of heresy. He had a disagreement with Pope
Callixtus I, got himself elected Pope -- and later also attacked
Pope Urban I and Pope Pontian.
How good are his credentials? Photios I of Constantinople said
he Hippolytus was a student of Irenaeus who was a student of
Polycarp who had been a student of John. I find that doubtful.
I consider Photios an inventor of any ideas that served his
purposes, chief architect of the problems that later became the
Great Schism. I trust nothing Photius has to say.
Hippolytus is also said to have been the first person to set a
date for the return of Jesus which he thought would occur in 500
AD.
What appears to be going on is is sifting of early writings to
find people who agree on a point while ignoring other things
they said or did which undermine their credentials. An
infallible Tradition cannot be based on fallible sources. It
makes my head swim. What I see is that wide disagreements
often existed in the early Church.
It seems enough to me to say that the person dies in a way when
he goes under water in baptism and rises a new person. That
seems the truth to me, a truth that is preserved as part of
Church Tradition. It doesn't depend on these other people who
make my head swim.
#Post#: 2862--------------------------------------------------
Re: Born Again
By: CatholicCrusader Date: August 13, 2015, 9:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Kerry link=topic=317.msg2861#msg2861
date=1439414581]. . . .For all I know, one person could have
written something wrong and later generations followed him.
How do I know if Hermas the Shepherd introduced an error and the
other people who came later repeated it? . . . . [/quote]
Yes, that is a problem for non-Catholics I admit, not having an
authority to turn to for such things. I, on the other hand,
trust the Church because I trust that She is invested with the
Christ-given authority to weed out the good from the bad. After
all, that's what she did with the NT books, right? Weed out the
good from the bad. You accept Her decisions on the NT books,
why not accept Her other decisions? But of course, that is
another topic for another day.
#Post#: 2865--------------------------------------------------
Re: Born Again
By: Kerry Date: August 13, 2015, 4:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=CatholicCrusader link=topic=317.msg2862#msg2862
date=1439474841]
Yes, that is a problem for non-Catholics I admit, not having an
authority to turn to for such things. I, on the other hand,
trust the Church because I trust that She is invested with the
Christ-given authority to weed out the good from the bad. After
all, that's what she did with the NT books, right? Weed out the
good from the bad. You accept Her decisions on the NT books,
why not accept Her other decisions? But of course, that is
another topic for another day.
[/quote]The NT books are another topic; but I have my doubts
about some of them. The book I have the most problems with is
Acts.
#Post#: 2868--------------------------------------------------
Re: Born Again
By: Oneoff Date: August 14, 2015, 1:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Deborah link=topic=317.msg2812#msg2812
date=1438872523]
And this is my view:
HTML https://deborahsbiblestudies.wordpress.com/2013/05/01/new-birth/
I would also say (having read Tim Staples' article) that there
are many routes to the new birth - and 'praying the sinners'
prayer' is only one of them.
[/quote]
I have needed to troll back through several posts to get to the
subject matter of the thread title in order to contribute my
'two cents'.
I have had plenty of experience of claims to having been 'born
again' (i used to fudge my own claim to such an experience as
having happened when, as a very small child, I used to 'parrot
out' a Sunday School teacher's prayer that we should "open the
door of our hearts and let Jesus in").
However I have no experience of anyone being sufficiently
changed to warrant the claim (including myself).
My 'inclination' is towards the hope of another 'life' after
death, with 'Born Again' being the transition.
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page