Mary, Jesus and the Holy Spirit

We run across arguments also about the grasshoppers having four legs as noted in Leviticus 11. I once tried showing a rather obnoxious atheist a website that explained that the hind legs of the grasshopper were considered an appendage other than legs by the ancient Jews. Of course, rather than saying, "oh! I didn't realize that," he argued it straight into the ground. I just shook my head at the computer screen. Like these nomadic people who were prone to locust swarms never picked up one of the insects and said "Hey! This thing has SIX legs! What were we thinking?"

Click to expand...

I'm minded of Lincoln's question. "How many legs does a dog have, if you count the tail as a leg?" There are four. What you consider to be a leg isn't the issue.

The original assertion was that the grasshopper's hind legs didn't count because the grasshopper jumps and doesn't walk with them. But that's wrong. The Israelites would have observed that it does walk with them.

But you've got the real issue correctly. The errors we see are things like this, and rabbits supposedly chewing cud, and imprecise dimensions for a circular vessel, and so on.

There have always been errors in Scripture, of a minor sort that doesn't change anything of the message. But when has there been a widely-accepted Bible with major errors?

Of all the things at which to try to aim criticism when discussing the Bible, animals and natural environment have to be the weakest. The Israelites did not have Latin yet and did not have had the same "kingdom, phylum, class, order" structure that we now recognize, but they CERTAINLY had an understanding of their environment. They had to! They would have died otherwise.

Click to expand...

Yep. I'm inclined to believe this was introduced long after settlement in Israel.

"cheweth the cud"

If memory serves me right "chewing the cud" is m'alah gerah (Hebrew) and has not so much to do with rumination but the manner of ingestion.

alah is a multi purpose word among its many meanings - to lift, exalt - that is to give importance to... to the act of chewing the morsel of food.

The Scripture is distinguishing between those animals that chew their food rather than those that rip, tear and then bolt it down such as scavangers and predators.

HankD

Galatian asks:
Are you now telling me that there have not been errors in Scripture?

I can't find that in my posts, no. Would you like to re-read them?

Click to expand...

You seemed to be telling me that the Bible was inerrant. Do you think so or not?

Galatian asks again:
How do you know that there still aren't?

I didn't say there aren't...I didn't comment. I only asked you how you can trust something errant...

Click to expand...

I gather you trust yourself to read the Bible and learn from it. Yet you are errant? How do you trust yourself to do that?

Galatian, earlier:
In spite of Helen's denial, rabbits do not chew cud. That has a very specific meaning. And then we get "well ______ used to mean something different in those days.", a dodge that covers any discrepancy at all.

Of course there are errors in Scripture. The KJV, and others were specifically compiled to reduce the number of errors.

The KJV was compiled to reduce errors in Scripture? Prove it. I don't believe you.

Click to expand...

Puritans in England issued the Millenary Petition in 1603, demanding that certain rites and ceremonies of the Church of England be changed, and that a new translation of the Bible be prepared to correct the errors of earlier versions.

The Hampton Court conference was convened by King James to consider these demands. The Puritans got almost nothing but an agreement that a more accurate Bible would be prepared. Work began in 1611, by a panel of distinguished churchmen and scholars. This resulted in the KJV.

And now you know the rest of the story.
I don't know of an error that attends directly to the message of the Bible, however. Do you?

There had been a spate of English translations, but they had generally been the work of one or a few people, and they tended to differ depending on the political or religious ideas of the translators. The purpose of a committee was to make sure that the translation was a neutral as possible.

You don't know of one but that might simply be because it's not evidence by contradictory things such as you are saying the two genealogies are. With them you don't know 'which is right', do you, if they are both claimed to be of Joseph?

Click to expand...

Well, they both say that they are of Joseph. So we have that problem. My question is then; what difference does it make to your faith in God and His Resurrection if you are wrong, and it is a mistake? What would you do or believe differently about our relationship to Him?

If you only had one of them it could be the wrong one. So maybe some other things are equally wrong and you just don't know it.

Click to expand...

Could be.

Galatian:
If it's important to you that the Bible be correct in the number of legs a grasshopper has, or whether or not rabbits are ruminants, then this is a major problem. Otherwise, you're with the vast majority of Christians, and don't have a problem.

Feel free to clarify if you want to.

Click to expand...

I hope this post helps.

AITB: So how can I believe that the Bible is true where it counts, if it sometimes has errors where it doesn't count?

Galatian, earlier:
How can we be sure the Bible is the word of God at all? Ultimately, we must have faith that it does. And I do.

Yes but why do you have faith in a book you 'know' has errors in? On something very important?

Click to expand...

It seems completely unimportant. What is important is the fall, our doomed attempts to save ourselves, and God's sacrifice of His Son to effect that for us.

Would you be relying on a science book that says "the earth is flat", saying "Ah but I trust the rest of what it says"?

Click to expand...

Nope. But if it got the 18th digit of pi wrong, I'd conclude that the book, like all things humans copy, had a typo. Since educated humans knew the earth was a sphere hundreds of years before Christ, that would be a pretty major error.

Galatian, earlier:
There's more. We have the tradition of Christians from the beginning.

...who thought the Bible has no errors in so why trust them...since they are 'wrong' about that...

Click to expand...

Since there was no canonical Bible until fairly recently, they wouldn't have thought so. There was considerable difference even within a given nation, of which books were actually inspired.

Galatian, earlier:
And we have extensive scholarship to determine what they wrote and what they thought of it.

That's enough.

If you say so.

Click to expand...

That's how it happened. The Bible was compiled by men, relying on tradition, and scholarship and revelation.

If you're not going to answer then kindly tell me so...

Click to expand...

Galatian notes:
I think I just answered

You don't have to answer me again. You did answer my question. But if you want to, you are free to, of course...

Click to expand...

Ah, you didn't get the answer you wanted. I understand now.

Leviticus 11:21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth
upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;

The word "all" is in italics, not in the original text.

Actually they have 6 appendages as Clint has already noted. The KJV has "legs above their feet" better would be "legs behind their feet".

Again the Scripture is prioritizing the use of the "legs" and "feet".

Four "feet" primarily to walk with.
Two "legs" primarily to leap with.

A cockroach has six "feet" and it flies (the big ones), it uses all six with which to walk.

Insects with two "legs" prioritized for "leaping" were clean for the Hebrews. Also they must "leap" upon the earth as a priority (no fleas )

HankD

[ August 05, 2002, 10:14 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]

Originally posted by The Galatian:
Ah, you didn't get the answer you wanted. I understand now.

Click to expand...

I will answer your post when I have more time - just to say for now - you sure make a lot of assumptions about me...how do you know I didn't get the answer I wanted?

AITB

Leviticus 11:21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth
upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;

The word "all" is in italics, not in the original text.

Actually they have 6 appendages as Clint has already noted. The KJV has "legs above their feet" better would be "legs behind their feet".

Again the Scripture is prioritizing the use of the "legs" and "feet".

Four "feet" primarily to walk with.
Two "legs" primarily to leap with.

A cockroach has six "feet" and it flies (the big ones), it uses all six with which to walk.

Insects with two "legs" prioritized for "leaping" were clean for the Hebrews. Also they must "leap" upon the earth as a priority (no fleas )

Click to expand...

It always amazes me how literalists, when they come to a verse they don't like, go through the most amazing contortions to prove it doesn't say what it does.

It always amazes me how literalists, when they come to a verse they don't like, go through the most amazing contortions to prove it doesn't say what it does.

Click to expand...

On the contrary dear brother Galatians, I have proven what it literally says by giving the meaning of what it says in the original language.

BTW Galatian, a literal interpretation of the following Scripture was one of the many reasons I left the Roman Catholic Church.

Exodus 20
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

HankD

[ August 05, 2002, 02:57 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]

Galatian observes:
It always amazes me how literalists, when they come to a verse they don't like, go through the most amazing contortions to prove it doesn't say what it does.

On the contrary dear brother Galatians, I have proven what it literally says by giving the meaning of what it says in the original language.

Click to expand...

Well, no. But it was certainly an original concept you presented. If you're saying that the error in the Bible is a mistranslation, I'm open to the idea. But reality is obviously not adjustable by clever theology.

BTW Galatian, a literal interpretation of the following Scripture was one of the many reasons I left the Roman Catholic Church.

Exodus 20
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:

Click to expand...

Do you believe it's a sin to make a photograph? That's what the above passage says. Do you have pictures in your house? Obviously, you're sinning if you do (assuming that the Bible is inerrant)

5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

Click to expand...

This seems odd. Since the Catholic church specifically condemns idolatry, why would you find that objectionable?

BTW, I don't object to someone moving from the Catholic Church to the Baptist Church. If God speaks to you best there, I'd say it was a good thing you moved. Catholic convert found the opposite; good for him, too.

I don't think you sinned by moving, nor do I think you are any less likely to be saved as a Baptist.

Dear Galatian,

You posted…

Do you believe it's a sin to make a photograph? That's what the above passage says. Do you have pictures in your house? Obviously, you're sinning if you do (assuming that the Bible is inerrant)

Click to expand...

First of all, after reading your entire post especially referring to me as a literalist and saying

"It always amazes me how literalists, when they come to a verse they don't like, go through the most amazing contortions to prove it doesn't say what it does".

Perhaps I should have explained that a literal view of this passage cost me dearly in terms of my family and their reactions toward me for leaving the Church of Rome.
So you are at least partially wrong in what you said.

Now to the questions, yes photographs are images and forbidden by the Law of God.
Yes, I have them in my house and my wallet and on the money that I possess.

And when I am stricken in conscience about this very thing, I acknowledge to God my inability and/or my unwillingness to keep all of His commandments.

RE: Bowing before an image of Mary (or whoever) and praying to her.

Yes the Church of Rome says idolatry is a sin.
They make a distinction between something called "latria" and "hyperdulia", the one is for God the other for created beings.
Personally, I couldn't/don't see the difference.
If the Church of Rome acknowledged that what they are doing with images is wrong and honestly said that they are going to do it anyway, I could live with that.
After all it is part of my own philosophy.

Yes, I shall be saved as you have said (actually, I would use the present tense, I am saved) in spite of my breaking the commandment(s).

Yes, Catholic, Baptist, whatever, God can see the heart, whether it trusts Christ alone or no.
He is our one and only hope.

HankD

Originally posted by The Galatian:

Galatian asks:
Are you now telling me that there have not been errors in Scripture?

AITB: I can't find that in my posts, no. Would you like to re-read them?

Galatian: You seemed to be telling me that the Bible was inerrant. Do you think so or not?

What I think is not relevant. I wanted to know how you can trust parts of a book with mistakes in.

Galatian asks again:
How do you know that there still aren't?

Did I say I knew anything? I don't think I did.

Galatian: I gather you trust yourself to read the Bible and learn from it. Yet you are errant? How do you trust yourself to do that?

How do I trust myself? With difficulty actually. I'm not sure I do.

Galatian, earlier:
In spite of Helen's denial, rabbits do not chew cud. That has a very specific meaning. And then we get "well ______ used to mean something different in those days.", a dodge that covers any discrepancy at all.

Of course there are errors in Scripture. The KJV, and others were specifically compiled to reduce the number of errors.

AITB:The KJV was compiled to reduce errors in Scripture? Prove it. I don't believe you.

Galatian: Puritans in England issued the Millenary Petition in 1603, demanding that certain rites and ceremonies of the Church of England be changed, and that a new translation of the Bible be prepared to correct the errors of earlier versions.

Ahhhh, but was that to correct the errors in earlier translations of the originals or in the originals? I.e. was the request going to make the KJV closer to the originals or less close?

It makes a huge difference and I can't tell from what you said. Anyway do you have a link to where this info comes from?

Galatian: The Hampton Court conference was convened by King James to consider these demands. The Puritans got almost nothing but an agreement that a more accurate Bible would be prepared. Work began in 1611, by a panel of distinguished churchmen and scholars. This resulted in the KJV.

And now you know the rest of the story.

Yeah but I don't know what was being corrected.

I don't know of an error that attends directly to the message of the Bible, however. Do you?

How would you know if there was one, though?

Galatian: There had been a spate of English translations, but they had generally been the work of one or a few people, and they tended to differ depending on the political or religious ideas of the translators. The purpose of a committee was to make sure that the translation was a neutral as possible.

That seems reasonable except that in the case of the NIV committee I'm very disappointed in some of what made it into the NIV, given that a committee worked on it. Several committee, I expect, actually.

AITB: You don't know of one but that might simply be because it's not evidence by contradictory things such as you are saying the two genealogies are. With them you don't know 'which is right', do you, if they are both claimed to be of Joseph?

Galatian: Well, they both say that they are of Joseph. So we have that problem. My question is then; what difference does it make to your faith in God and His Resurrection if you are wrong, and it is a mistake? What would you do or believe differently about our relationship to Him?

I don't know

AITB: If you only had one of them it could be the wrong one. So maybe some other things are equally wrong and you just don't know it.

Galatian: Could be.

See?

Galatian:
If it's important to you that the Bible be correct in the number of legs a grasshopper has, or whether or not rabbits are ruminants, then this is a major problem. Otherwise, you're with the vast majority of Christians, and don't have a problem.

AITB: Feel free to clarify if you want to.[/QUOTE]

Galatian: I hope this post helps.

It helps me understand where you're coming from, yes.

Galatian, earlier:
How can we be sure the Bible is the word of God at all? Ultimately, we must have faith that it does. And I do.

AITB: Yes but why do you have faith in a book you 'know' has errors in? On something very important?

Galatian: It seems completely unimportant. What is important is the fall, our doomed attempts to save ourselves, and God's sacrifice of His Son to effect that for us.

I still don't know how you know those are reliable. But - if you have faith that they are, then - so be it.

AITB: Would you be relying on a science book that says "the earth is flat", saying "Ah but I trust the rest of what it says"?

Galatian: Nope. But if it got the 18th digit of pi wrong, I'd conclude that the book, like all things humans copy, had a typo. Since educated humans knew the earth was a sphere hundreds of years before Christ, that would be a pretty major error.

Ok, I see what you are saying.

Galatian, earlier:
There's more. We have the tradition of Christians from the beginning.

AITB:...who thought the Bible has no errors in so why trust them...since they are 'wrong' about that...

Galatian: Since there was no canonical Bible until fairly recently, they wouldn't have thought so. There was considerable difference even within a given nation, of which books were actually inspired.

There's that verse where Peter seems to put Paul's writings on a par with the pre-Christ sacred writings - what about that?

Galatian, earlier:
And we have extensive scholarship to determine what they wrote and what they thought of it.

That's enough.

AITB: If you say so.

Galatian: That's how it happened. The Bible was compiled by men, relying on tradition, and scholarship and revelation.

[...]

Galatian: Ah, you didn't get the answer you wanted. I understand now.[/B]

That's not really true.

All I wanted was you to answer. I didn't presuppose your answer.

I may be giving you a hard time just to see what you say. I'm not used to talking to Christians who don't hold to inerrancy...

AITB

Barbarian points:
Do you believe it's a sin to make a photograph? That's what the above passage says. Do you have pictures in your house? Obviously, you're sinning if you do (assuming that the Bible is inerrant)

First of all, after reading your entire post especially referring to me as a literalist and saying

"It always amazes me how literalists, when they come to a verse they don't like, go through the most amazing contortions to prove it doesn't say what it does".

Perhaps I should have explained that a literal view of this passage cost me dearly in terms of my family and their reactions toward me for leaving the Church of Rome.

Might have depended on how you handled it. If you left with "you're all pagan idolators", I can see where that might have caused some hard feelings. If, on the other hand, you simply said you felt Baptists were closer to what God's church should be, then they were at fault. Most times, it's somewhere between.

Me, I think anytime someone gets right with God, that's a good thing, regardless.

You might mention to them that Roman Catholic Doctrine is that Baptists are Christians too, and our brothers in Christ, even if they don't have it exactly right.

So you are at least partially wrong in what you said.

Click to expand...

Well, there are some Roman Catholics who hate Baptists, and think that they are idolators, too. The stuff you sometimes see on this board isn't limited to Baptists.

It's sad, but that's how it is.

Now to the questions, yes photographs are images and forbidden by the Law of God.
Yes, I have them in my house and my wallet and on the money that I possess.

And when I am stricken in conscience about this very thing, I acknowledge to God my inability and/or my unwillingness to keep all of His commandments.

Click to expand...

That's a good one. When I moved to Louisiana, many years ago, I worked next to this woman who was a very strict Baptist. She was very down on dancing. One night, she was planning to go dancing. I mentioned that she had said it was a sin. Her reply? "Everyone sins."

True, I guess, but I don't make plans to do it. I'm more of a spontaneous sinner, I guess. When I have time to think about it, it takes all the fun out of it. But that may be the Catholic tradition that premeditatively sinning, even though you have considered that it is offensive to God, is particularly evil.

RE: Bowing before an image of Mary (or whoever) and praying to her.

Yes the Church of Rome says idolatry is a sin.
They make a distinction between something called "latria" and "hyperdulia", the one is for God the other for created beings.

Click to expand...

To be more precise:

"An essential difference exists between idolatry and the veneration of images practised in the Catholic Church, viz., that while the idolater credits the image he reverences with Divinity or Divine powers, the Catholic knows "that in images there is no divinity or virtue on account of which they are to be worshipped, that no petitions can be addressed to them, and that no trust is to be placed in them. . . that the honour which is given to them is referred to the objects (prototypa) which they represent, so that through the images which we kiss, and before which we uncover our heads and kneel, we adore Christ and venerate the Saints whose likenesses they are" (Conc. find., Sess. XXV, "de invocatione Sanctorum").

Personally, I couldn't/don't see the difference.

Click to expand...

You probably wouldn't be a Baptist if you could.

If the Church of Rome acknowledged that what they are doing with images is wrong and honestly said that they are going to do it anyway, I could live with that.
After all it is part of my own philosophy.

Click to expand...

My take on it is that we aren't bound by the Old Covenant.

Yes, I shall be saved as you have said (actually, I would use the present tense, I am saved) in spite of my breaking the commandment(s).

Yes, Catholic, Baptist, whatever, God can see the heart, whether it trusts Christ alone or no.
He is our one and only hope.

Click to expand...

I'm pleased for you. Is it your opinion that there is nothing you can do to lose salvation at this point?

Dear Galatians,

You wrote…

Might have depended on how you handled it. If you left with "you're all pagan idolators", I can see where that might have caused some hard feelings. If, on the other hand, you simply said you felt Baptists were closer to what God's church should be, then they were at fault. Most times, it's somewhere between.

Click to expand...

There was some of that. I was young and on a crusade. I tried to be kind and I didn't want to hurt anyone, on the other hand I wanted my family to know that I felt strongly about it. My first move was to the Lutheran Church, later as I studied the Scriptures, I gravitated towards the Baptist distinctives.

You might mention to them that Roman Catholic Doctrine is that Baptists are Christians too, and our brothers in Christ, even if they don't have it exactly right.

Click to expand...

Yes, but I am a defector and under a blanket excommunication.

REremeditative sin: This is why I used the both the words "inability and unwillingness".

The Law of God is there for more than one reason. Besides restraining the flesh the world is under the conviction/reproval of the Holy Spirit via the Law: "sin is the transgression of the law"

The Law drives us to Christ for forgiveness.

The sins against the second commandment are nearly impossible to avoid and stay in the world as a functioning individual. Images are everywhere including on our money.
I am more unable than unwilling to keep the second commandment in terms of images, pictures, etc. So one day I acknowledged to God my inability to keep all that the second commandment requires. I don't have a problem with it anymore.

There are other things which I am more unwilling to let go of than unable.

In either case, when my conscience hurts, I acknowledge my inability/unwillingness to our heavenly Father.

My take on it is that we aren't bound by the Old Covenant.

Click to expand...

Yes, this is also true, yet I must honestly say that when I wander from the leading of the Spirit and covet (10th commandment) that which I shouldn't have, I hear again the thunder from Mt Sinai until I come back to His leading.

Is it your opinion that there is nothing you can do to lose salvation at this point?

Click to expand...

Correct, there is nothing I could do, God would have to do it. After all He is the one who saved me in the first place.

HankD

[ August 05, 2002, 06:51 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]

Originally posted by The Galatian:
You might mention to them that Roman Catholic Doctrine is that Baptists are Christians too, and our brothers in Christ, even if they don't have it exactly right.

Click to expand...

The problem is perhaps that many Baptists do not think Roman Catholics are brothers (and sisters) in Christ.

Which means that they are destined for hell unless they hear and receive the truth about salvation.

You can believe some of the Bible without understanding or even knowing 'the gospel'. I know; I was there once (not as a Roman Catholic but a 'churched' Anglican). You can think you believe what Christians believe and have no idea of what it means personally that Jesus died for you. You can be unaware that your eternal destiny is in peril unless you are covered by the atoning death of Jesus personally. You can not know that God calls you into relationship with Himself through Jesus Christ. You can have no idea that He wants to live in you and through you through His Holy Spirit.

etc.

AITB

Originally posted by AITB:

You can think you believe what Christians believe and have no idea of what it means personally that Jesus died for you. You can be unaware that your eternal destiny is in peril unless you are covered by the atoning death of Jesus personally.
etc.

AITB

Click to expand...

Thanks for bringing this up. Could you point me to the words "personal Savior" in Scripture?

[ August 06, 2002, 08:10 AM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]

Originally posted by trying2understand:
Thanks for bringing this up. Could you point me to the words "personal Savior" in Scripture?

Click to expand...

I didn't use them actually

I'd guess that phrase is not in there.

But it's a good question and I'll think about it and answer more in a while

Ok, it was a short while...

Anyway, the words don't matter, do they? If you hate the 'personal Savior' language then set it aside. (Maybe you don't; I'm just saying, if you do...)

But I'm trying to distinguish between a belief that is life-changing and one that isn't. Here's an analogy. As a child they gave away free milk at my school (this was in England). I expect every child believed that free milk was available but they didn't all drink it. Only the ones who drank it got the nutritional benefit from it.

I'd say that when Jesus in John's gospel talks about being "in you" that is extremely personal! (See John 15:3 for example: "Remain in me, and I will remain in you.") Paul also calls "Christ in you" the hope of glory.

The point is not whether people are willing to use the 'personal savior' words. The point is, what importance does Jesus Christ have in their lives? Do they want to be more like him? Are they actively involved in seeking to have that come about? Are they trying to live out his commands and follow him in the sense of loving people the way he did? etc.

Does this make sense to you, t2u?

AITB

[ August 06, 2002, 08:31 AM: Message edited by: AITB ]

The problem is perhaps that many Baptists do not think Roman Catholics are brothers (and sisters) in Christ.

Click to expand...

Fortunately for both Baptists and Catholics, God gets to decide. The Phairasees are the ones whose salvation is at risk, not decent Catholics and Baptists.

Which means that they are destined for hell unless they hear and receive the truth about salvation.

Click to expand...

Actually, God can save people, even in places like North Korea, where they never get a chance to hear about that. He's very capable, and He doesn't want anyone to go to Hell.

You can think you believe what Christians believe and have no idea of what it means personally that Jesus died for you.

Click to expand...

My wife is an Episcopalian. They are no less aware than Catholics and Baptists of this fact. I suspect that your situation was a personal one, but one which sent you on a mission to find that meaning elsewhere. A good result, after all.

You can be unaware that your eternal destiny is in peril unless you are covered by the atoning death of Jesus personally. You can not know that God calls you into relationship with Himself through Jesus Christ. You can have no idea that He wants to live in you and through you through His Holy Spirit.

Click to expand...

If you were Catholic, you would. You couldn't get out of basic Catechism without that knowledge. I believe Anglicans are no different. It is referred to in the Catholic Church as the Baptism of desire, such as the Good Thief underwent on the cross.

Originally posted by The Galatian:

AITB: The problem is perhaps that many Baptists do not think Roman Catholics are brothers (and sisters) in Christ.

TG: Fortunately for both Baptists and Catholics, God gets to decide.

I agree!

The Phairasees are the ones whose salvation is at risk, not decent Catholics and Baptists.

I can see why you'd say that about the Pharisees based on Jesus' words.

I don't think we can fully know who is 'Pharisee-like', as we encounter self-professed Christians. Only God knows that for sure.

AITB: Which means that they are destined for hell unless they hear and receive the truth about salvation.

TG:Actually, God can save people, even in places like North Korea, where they never get a chance to hear about that. He's very capable, and He doesn't want anyone to go to Hell.

True true and true but we don't actually know who He will save of those people. Scripture does say 'many' and that's reassuring.

I think it's reasonable to say that no-one is saved apart from Jesus' atoning death because it's the only basis for entrance into heaven, Biblically speaking.

But we don't know exactly how and who God might apply that to when it comes to people who've not 'rejected' belief in Jesus because they either can't understand what that is (babies, mentally incapable people) or they haven't ever heard of Jesus.

AITB: You can think you believe what Christians believe and have no idea of what it means personally that Jesus died for you.

TG:My wife is an Episcopalian. They are no less aware than Catholics and Baptists of this fact.

Yes but you can't generalize. I was an an Anglican (=Episcopal) high school for five years and never understood what it meant until after I left there. Some Episcopals and Catholics and Baptist understand; some don't.

TG: I suspect that your situation was a personal one, but one which sent you on a mission to find that meaning elsewhere. A good result, after all.

I don't know how to respond to that, really. All my church experience as a kid was totally inadequate in terms of explaining 'what it was all about' to me. I don't think it was just me being obtuse. I wasn't a stupid kid.

AITB: You can be unaware that your eternal destiny is in peril unless you are covered by the atoning death of Jesus personally. You can not know that God calls you into relationship with Himself through Jesus Christ. You can have no idea that He wants to live in you and through you through His Holy Spirit.

TG: If you were Catholic, you would.

Again, you can't generalize this way. I've met Catholics who've told me they had no understanding of the significance of Jesus until they heard of it from a non-Catholic source.

TG: You couldn't get out of basic Catechism without that knowledge. I believe Anglicans are no different. It is referred to in the Catholic Church as the Baptism of desire, such as the Good Thief underwent on the cross.

All I can tell you is what people have shared with me about WHEN they came to understand the personal significance of Jesus' death on the cross, to them.

For many, it was not through their upbringing and exposure in a mainline denomination, whether Catholic or other.

But there are also people brought up in conservative churches who miss the personal significance of it, until they grow up.

As I said, one can't generalize. But I do believe some sources explain it more competently than others.

AITB

AITB,
My point is that for whatever reason, sometimes the message just doesn't "take" when presented in the context of the faith in which one was raised.

At that point, it's time to find another way.

It's always possible that one's teachers just did a crummy job of telling one about God and His relationship with us. Or maybe we just aren't ready to hear it that way.

I will tell you that as I grow older, my understanding and appreciation of the Lord increases.

All I can say is that you were unfortunate in not getting Him in the Anglican faith, but you took the right steps to remedy that. There is no difference in God's eyes, and that's all that counts.

Originally posted by The Galatian:

AITB,
My point is that for whatever reason, sometimes the message just doesn't "take" when presented in the context of the faith in which one was raised.

At that point, it's time to find another way.

That seems reasonable if one knows that it didn't "take" and knows to keep seeking.

It's always possible that one's teachers just did a crummy job of telling one about God and His relationship with us. Or maybe we just aren't ready to hear it that way.

Well, I think my children understood about Jesus better when they were three than I did at 18. What would you deduce from that? I deduce that they are having him explained more clearly than I did.

I will tell you that as I grow older, my understanding and appreciation of the Lord increases.

And so we hope it is for all of us

All I can say is that you were unfortunate in not getting Him in the Anglican faith

Unfortunate but I fear it's all too typical! Not to pick on Anglicans in particular.

, but you took the right steps to remedy that.

I feel uncomfortable with how much 'credit' this appears to give me - but, I agree with you except for preferring to say God chose to move me closer to Him.

There is no difference in God's eyes, and that's all that counts.

I agree. All who 'come' are clothed with the same righteousness of Christ regardless of whether we came early or late and where we came from.

[/QUOTE]

Could you point me to the words "personal Savior" in Scripture?

Click to expand...

Hi T2U,

If we want any kind of unity at all or even a move in that direction, I believe we must avoid these kind of na-na-na-na-na-na games and yes everyone is guilty including myself.

For instance, where is the word "transubstantiation" found in the Scripture?

I have asked this question of Catholics and John Chapter 6 is the official proof text of the RCC.
Why? Because you believe the concept of "transubstantiation" is taught there though the word itself is not used.

Jesus made His salvation personal on more than one occasion without using the words "personal Savior":

John 11:
24 Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.
25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?
27 She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world.

HankD