Davidic Covenant

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
You want explicit verses for this but you don't accept the authority of Scripture.

Pastor Larry,

What kind of baseless argument is this? What in the world have you based this on? I don't accept the authority of Scripture? What gives you the right to say such a thing? I don't give all authority to Scripture, which is shared with the Christ-instituded Church body, but that does not in any way degrade my views of Scripture. Frankly, how dare you.

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
When I have given you explicit verses for things in the past, you have opted for your church's interpretation of them.

Well, let's just be universal. If my brother gets angry at me, and I hit him, does that mean I will hit him every time I get angry at him?

You have no justification for this statement. I'm not even looking for interpretation, and if a verse is EXPLICIT, it's not up for major misinterpretation; you're talking of implicit meanings. Furthermore, I asked for a verse, not your interpretation of it, nor mine. How can I misinterpret a verse you won't post? You're just picking on me to avoid having to provide evidence.

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Were I to provide a specific verse, you would explain it away by appealing to the teaching magesterium.

Thanks for judging my actions before I commit them. Would you like it if I said you appeal to your own idea of what is correct, based out of your own thoughts and emotions? No. So don't judge me when it's not appropriate to do so.

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
The answer to your question is addressed by the teaching of the NT about itself. Christ was clear that authority to write the NT was given to the apostles (John 14, 16).

Luke was an apostle? Paul was an apostle? Where is this in the Bible?

From my New American Bible:

"And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate to be with you always, 17 the Spirit of truth, which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees it or knows it."

The NIV version is very similar to this. I'm going to question your interpretation because I do not understand it, not because I don't agree with it. Where in this do you see that Christ is giving "the authority to write the NT?" It doesn't even talk about writing, but simply that they will have the Spirit of Truth. Nor does it talk about this revelation being closed at any point, and that it will end with the apostles.

Please help me understand your belief.

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
John, being the last living apostle, was of necessity the close of divine revelation.

I'll need to know more about this verse interpretation before I can possibly understand how you derive this.

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Larry,

You wrote, "You want explicit verses for this but you don't accept the authority of Scripture. When I have given you explicit verses for things in the past, you have opted for your church's interpretation of them. Were I to provide a specific verse, you would explain it away by appealing to the teaching magesterium."

Notice that GraceSaves does accept the authority of Scripture as interpreted by an authority. We have two interpretations here: 1. one in line with the authoritative Teaching body instituted by Christ and 2. one not in line w/ this authority.

Both interpretations give authority to Scripture; one is guided by a Christ-instituted authority.

GraceSaves is following the example of Scripture.

Acts 8:30-31 - "So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, 'Do you understand what you are reading?' And he said, 'How can I, unless some one guides me?' And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him."

God bless,

Carson

[ April 14, 2002, 02:10 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

[Pastor Larry]

What kind of baseless argument is this? What in the world have you based this on? I don't accept the authority of Scripture? What gives you the right to say such a thing? I don't give all authority to Scripture, which is shared with the Christ-instituded Church body, but that does not in any way degrade my views of Scripture. Frankly, how dare you.

It is far from baseless. It is based on your consistent response to any verse of Scripture that has been posted here. Whenever scripture is posted, you opt for your church’s interpretation. Therefore, any authority you see in Scripture is superceded by the authority in your church. Catholics do not have a problem with this as a general rule because they accept it. I think this response shows the sensitivity that you feel because you have been confronted with Scripture about it and you are trying to maintain both authorities. The authority of the church is to defend and proclaim the truth. They are not permitted to distort it or hide it.

Well, let's just be universal. If my brother gets angry at me, and I hit him, does that mean I will hit him every time I get angry at him?

You have no justification for this statement. I'm not even looking for interpretation, and if a verse is EXPLICIT, it's not up for major misinterpretation; you're talking of implicit meanings. Furthermore, I asked for a verse, not your interpretation of it, nor mine. How can I misinterpret a verse you won't post? You're just picking on me to avoid having to provide evidence.

If you hit him every time then yes, there is good reason to believe that you will do it again. The justification is found in virtually every thread on this forum. As I have said before, the evidence is in abundance but you reject the authority, therefore you reject the evidence, even in the explicit verses.

You do appeal to the teaching magesterium for interpretation. You could not be a Catholic if you didn’t. That is not an unjust judge of your actions. It is simply the way it is. You do not have any opportunity within your church to do otherwise.

As for the NT, again, this view that I have propounded is readily available in sources that anyone has access to. Christ preauthenticated the NT and those who would write it. Any NT introduction such as Carson/Moo/Morris, Hiebert, etc. will show this. I am not sure why you cite the verse you do. It is certainly not one that I appealed to. The chapters 14 and 16 are the general chapters that Christ leaves his final words with his disciples. The two relevant verses are:

John 14:26 "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.
John 16:13 "But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.

A knowledge of Scripture such as you claim to have should have immediately brought this out. I am not trying to slam you or be unnecessarily hard on you. I simply find that a lot of knowledge that should be common knowledge is constantly being questioned. You do not seem to have a good handle on the teaching of Scripture and I can only assume that it is because you have allowed the church to dictate what you believe rather than checking it out as you should be doing.

Please help me understand your belief.

What is there to left to say? I am not sure and I am not sure why this is not understood. Christ preauthenticated Scripture from his disciples. Their authority was testified to by signs and wonders (Acts, Heb 2:3; mark 16:17-18). When John died, the last apostle was gone and the apostolic authority was recorded in the Scripture.

Grace, you are getting a little testy. My suspicion is that it is because this is hitting a little close to home.

[ April 14, 2002, 04:06 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

[Pastor Larry]

Notice that GraceSaves does accept the authority of Scripture as interpreted by an authority. We have two interpretations here: 1. one in line with the authoritative Teaching body instituted by Christ and 2. one not in line w/ this authority.

Both interpretations give authority to Scripture; one is guided by a Christ-instituted authority.

But you have totally jumped to the conclusion that your church is the Christ-instituted authority. Yet if we are obedient to Scripture, we test the Spirits to see whether they are from God. John tells us in 1 John 4 that the criteria are doctrinal fidelity and the audience who listens. The RCC fails on both accounts. They do not hold to that which was taught from the beginning but over 1500 years of church history have distorted and moved away from it. That removes them from being in any sense the church which Christ established. I realize that you find that contrary to your belief system and again, that proves my point. You cannot hold my view because of your view of authority. By virtue of the authority that you have placed in a man, you are not permitted to come to any different conclusion.

I do not have a problem with someone guiding someone else. But this guidance must be in line with Scripture and not in opposition to it.

Where is the obedience to the command of Scripture to test the spirits, to study Scripture to show your approved, to separate from false doctrine and those who teach it?

Again, you and Grace and I are not going to agree because we have a very different authority structure.

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Larry,

You wrote, "By virtue of the authority that you have placed in a man, you are not permitted to come to any different conclusion."

This is a very good summary of the quagmire that you have placed yourself in by accepting the canon of Scripture.

You bar yourself from a different canon than the one that you have allowed yourself to be "spoon fed", which is precisely the situation that you criticize the Catholic for placing him/herself in by following the Apostolic teaching authority. Only, the Catholic is honest about his/her following. You, on the other hand, silently snatch the canon from the Catholic cookie jar and hold onto this canon with blind fidelity.

Larry, are you permitted to come to any different conclusion concerning the canon? Well, are you? Or, is it that Roma locuta est, causa finita est?

God bless,

Carson

[ April 14, 2002, 08:13 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Carson Weber:
This is a very good summary of the quagmire that you have placed yourself in by accepting the canon of Scripture.

Not at all. This is a non sequitur. I have not been "spoon fed" a canon. I take 2000 years of church history as evidence to the canon. It has been well-established.

My "criticism" of the Catholic is because they put their trust in an unbiblical heirarchy of authority that has contradicted Scripture and redefined their doctrine numerous times in their history.

The canon is not a Catholic canon. It was a catholic canon but there is a big difference. The canon is established because of God, not because some group of men decided what it would be.

Larry, are you permitted to come to any different conclusion concerning the canon?

Why would I want to? The canon exists as it is whether I accept it or not. My personal beliefs are not eh issue.

However, this subject is far off the Davidic covenant and we will not agree on this because of the vastly different authority that we have.

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Not at all. This is a non sequitur. I have not been "spoon fed" a canon. I take 2000 years of church history as evidence to the canon. It has been well-established.

Indeed it has, but that begs the question of who passed it on to you, and where they got it from, and where they got it from, and so on, and so forth. You accept the canon blindly, which is fine, because it is infallible. However, in your own words, you have a fallible collection of infallible book.

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
My "criticism" of the Catholic is because they put their trust in an unbiblical heirarchy of authority that has contradicted Scripture and redefined their doctrine numerous times in their history.

Which equates to "they could not have assembled the canon?"

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
The canon is not a Catholic canon. It was a catholic canon but there is a big difference. The canon is established because of God, not because some group of men decided what it would be.

Well, duh. Men, on their own, concluded nothing. Men, being lead fully by the power of the Holy Spirit granted to them, as a gift, by virtue of their office, established the Christian canon of Scripture.

You keep pretending like we believe that we're a renegade church of men who make up men's traditions and teachings. Whatever makes you feel good about YOU, ya know?

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Why would I want to? The canon exists as it is whether I accept it or not. My personal beliefs are not eh issue.

If your personal beliefs are not the issue, why are you involving your personal beliefs? Why are you having us read Bruce, if you didn't want us to see how the canon came about ACCORDING TO WHAT YOU ACCEPT AND BELIEVE? Don't make yourself high and mighty with words that you don't follow.

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
However, this subject is far off the Davidic covenant and we will not agree on this because of the vastly different authority that we have.

Why will you not accept it, if you don't involve your personal beliefs? Baffles me.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by GraceSaves:
Indeed it has, but that begs the question of who passed it on to you, and where they got it from, and where they got it from, and so on, and so forth. You accept the canon blindly, which is fine, because it is infallible. However, in your own words, you have a fallible collection of infallible book.

I do not accept the canon blindly. I do not have a fallible collection of infallible books. The canon has been testified to by 2000 years of church history.

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
My "criticism" of the Catholic is because they put their trust in an unbiblical heirarchy of authority that has contradicted Scripture and redefined their doctrine numerous times in their history.

Which equates to "they could not have assembled the canon?" [/quote]It equates to no such thing. The canon exists without the Catholic church.

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
The canon is not a Catholic canon. It was a catholic canon but there is a big difference. The canon is established because of God, not because some group of men decided what it would be.

Well, duh. Men, on their own, concluded nothing. Men, being lead fully by the power of the Holy Spirit granted to them, as a gift, by virtue of their office, established the Christian canon of Scripture.[/quote]Duh??? Duh what? Where is "office" included in the criteria for canonicity? And surely you must know that the canon was established long before these councils that you so depend on. Of course you might not know that since you haven't done any study on this issue.

You keep pretending like we believe that we're a renegade church of men who make up men's traditions and teachings. Whatever makes you feel good about YOU, ya know?

I only loosely call it a church because it does not meet the biblical qualifications of a church. I realize that is not your fault and I do not direct that at you. Your church is made up of a combination of biblical teaching and men's traditions and teaching. Unfortunately the latter are the problem. And it's not about me feeling good. It doesn't make me feel good at all. It breaks my heart because I see so many people with a lifeless religion who have no idea.

If your personal beliefs are not the issue, why are you involving your personal beliefs? Why are you having us read Bruce, if you didn't want us to see how the canon came about ACCORDING TO WHAT YOU ACCEPT AND BELIEVE?

I am not involving my personal beliefs. I have recommended Bruce for that very reason. I do not want you to take my word for it. I want you to see the historical documentation of it. You do not believe what I say. Bruce has 334 pages of well documented evidence. That is why I say to read him.

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
However, this subject is far off the Davidic covenant and we will not agree on this because of the vastly different authority that we have.

Why will you not accept it, if you don't involve your personal beliefs? Baffles me.[/QB][/QUOTE]Why will I not accept what? Your system of authority? I do not accept it because of what Scripture says. My beliefs must conform to Scritpure for that is the final rule of faith and practice. Where groups or people contradict Scripture, I must go with Scripture. Why will you not accept the authority of SCritpure? Because of your unsubstantiated belief in your church.

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Larry,

You wrote, "I take 2000 years of church history as evidence to the canon. It has been well-established."

I have three questions for you.

As I've pointed out, in 324 A.D., Eusebius of Caesarea tells us that 2 Peter is not to be accepted as canonical. Yet, you accept it. Why is this? (Question 1)

Again Larry, are you permitted to come to any different conclusion concerning the canon? (Question 2)

You wrote, "I do not have a fallible collection of infallible books."

Do you have an infallible collection of infallible books? (Question 3)

It would be honest for me to give my answers:

1. The Church in her councils decided to accept 2 Peter, and I trust in these men because I believe they were ultimately guided by the Spirit, as councils today are guided by the same Spirit in the same way.

2 No, I am not.. because I must submit to the decisions of the Magisterium, which stands in the place of Christ with his authority as his royal ministers in the Kingdom.

3. Yes, I do.

God bless,

Carson

[ April 16, 2002, 12:04 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Carson Weber:
As I've pointed out, in 324 A.D., Eusebius of Caesarea tells us that 2 Peter is not to be accepted as canonical. Yet, you accept it. Why is this? (Question 1)

1) one of the church fathers whom you revere so highly disagree with you. Why do you choose to not follow him? Are you admitting that the church fathers are not all that you would like them to be?

2) I accept it because the church as a whole accepted it. You can find someone to dispute with virtually every book at some place or another in church history. The point stands that the church as a whole accepted the 27 books we have now, some people notwithstanding.

Again Larry, are you permitted to come to any different conclusion concerning the canon? (Question 2)

Sure ... I can come to any conclusion I want to. The question is, Why would I?

You wrote, "I do not have a fallible collection of infallible books."

Do you have an infallible collection of infallible books? (Question 3)

The negative statement answers the positive. Yes I have an infallible collection of infallible books.

1. The Church in her councils decided to accept 2 Peter, and I trust in these men because I believe they were ultimately guided by the Spirit, as councils today are guided by the same Spirit in the same way.

But is this a sound belief? YOu have already disputed with one church father (Eusebius) and must dispute with many more. Yet you ascribe Holy Spirit leading to some others. Why the distinction? You want these men to have authority and yet you must admit as you already have that they were not infallible. The reason why 2 Peter is in the canon is because it was inspired -- not because a group of men chose it.

2 No, I am not.. because I must submit to the decisions of the Magisterium, which stands in the place of Christ with his authority as his royal ministers in the Kingdom.

Exactly ... yet this Magisterium is never described in Scripture, is never said to stand in the place of Christ, and these royal ministers ... well we have been there before (but at least this is somewhat related to teh Davidic covenant

).

The point is that as many bad decisions as these men have made through the years, there is ample evidence that their judgment is simply the judgment of men rather than that of apostolic authority. It is troubling that you so easily accept it and are led by it.

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Larry,

You asked, "one of the church fathers whom you revere so highly disagree with you. Why do you choose to not follow him? Are you admitting that the church fathers are not all that you would like them to be?"

I take the Church Fathers at face value. They are men who stand in the Living Tradition of the Church and who, like me, stand under the authority of the Magisterium, which itself stands under the Tradition and Scripture of the Church.

I choose not to "follow" Eusebius because he's not the Magisterium. He's one bishop among many bishops. And, regarding the canon, the bishops met in council, and, as a collegiate act, determined that 2 Peter is to be included in the canon. Eusebius himself would consent to this decision if it were made in his day. He also would give his imput at the council.

You wrote, "I accept it because the church as a whole accepted it."

The Church as a whole nearly fell into Arianism, so should you be an Arian?

Your answer makes me reflect upon your last statement, "The point is that as many bad decisions as these men have made through the years, there is ample evidence that their judgment is simply the judgment of men rather than that of apostolic authority. It is troubling that you so easily accept it and are led by it."

Ditto.

You wrote, "Sure ... I can come to any conclusion I want to. The question is, Why would I?"

Precisely because "The point is that as many bad decisions as these men have made through the years, there is ample evidence that their judgment is simply the judgment of men rather than that of apostolic authority. It is troubling that you so easily accept it and are led by it."

You wrote, "Yes I have an infallible collection of infallible books."

Where is the infallible pronouncement of the canon? Or was there never an infallible pronouncement made and you're simply speaking with a blind faith?

God bless,

Carson

 

[Pastor Larry]

This will be my last post here on this topic.

Originally posted by Carson Weber:
I take the Church Fathers at face value. They are men who stand in the Living Tradition of the Church and who, like me, stand under the authority of the Magisterium, which itself stands under the Tradition and Scripture of the Church.

I choose not to "follow" Eusebius because he's not the Magisterium. He's one bishop among many bishops. And, regarding the canon, the bishops met in council, and, as a collegiate act, determined that 2 Peter is to be included in the canon. Eusebius himself would consent to this decision if it were made in his day. He also would give his imput at the council.

This is awfully convenient for you because when you like what they say, they are first rate historians telling us what the apostles said; when you don't like what they say, they are not members of the magesterium can be ignored. Of course, the church tells you which is which to save you the trouble of thinkign for yourself about these things and studying the history and theology surrounding these issues. This just seems very convenient.

The Church as a whole nearly fell into Arianism, so should you be an Arian?

The church as a whole did not "almost fall into Arianism." None of the church fell into it because if one fell into it they would not be in the church. The doctrine of Christ is fundamental to Christianity and is non-negotiable. However, more to the point, men from all areas stood up against Arianism, thereby refuting your claim.

Your answer makes me reflect upon your last statement, "The point is that as many bad decisions as these men have made through the years, there is ample evidence that their judgment is simply the judgment of men rather than that of apostolic authority. It is troubling that you so easily accept it and are led by it."

Ditto.

How can you ditto this and still follow the men of your church?

You wrote, "Yes I have an infallible collection of infallible books."

Where is the infallible pronouncement of the canon? Or was there never an infallible pronouncement made and you're simply speaking with a blind faith?

Scripture has a self-attesting nature. The books of Scripture are well-recognized. The pronouncements made were only a recognition of the inherent authority in the books of Scripture.

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Larry,

You wrote, "This is awfully convenient for you because when you like what they say, they are first rate historians telling us what the apostles said; when you don't like what they say, they are not members of the magesterium can be ignored. Of course, the church tells you which is which to save you the trouble of thinkign for yourself about these things and studying the history and theology surrounding these issues. This just seems very convenient."

The Church doesn't save me the trouble of thinking for myself, studying history, or studying the theology surrounding the issues; am I not a graduate student studying precisely these issues? The Church does give me guidance, and it's a guidance that you follow yourself everytime you quote from NT Scripture because it handed you the canon. You simply won't admit in humility to an authority higher than yourself, though in practice you rely upon this authority as an infant relies upon his mother's breasts for milk.

You wrote, "How can you ditto this and still follow the men of your church?"

Exactly. How can you follow men who you trust when you accept the canon?

I can follow these men because they have authority. And this authority isn't their own, but is that of the Holy Spirit. Do you remember Anani'as and Sapphi'ra.. and who they lied to?

You wrote, "Scripture has a self-attesting nature. The books of Scripture are well-recognized. The pronouncements made were only a recognition of the inherent authority in the books of Scripture."

And, likewise, the Magisterium has a self-attesting nature. The Magisterium is well-recognized, and my following it is a recognition of the inherent authority it has.

Two can play the game of, "of course.. it's self-evident"!

Of course, it was also self-evident to numerous Christian churches that the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles (Didache), the Apostolic Constitutions, the Gospel According to the Hebrews, Paul's Epistle to the Laodiceans, the Epistle of Clement, III Corinthians, the Apocalypse of St Peter, and the Acts of St Paul were inspired Scripture.

I spoke with Dr. Michael Gorman of St. Mary's Methodist Seminary Monday evening at a Scripture & Abortion Symposium on campus, and he was the first to admit that the Didache and Barnabas were part of the canon until the late fourth century when the bishops, in council, removed them. This professor of New Testament Scripture just admits that he's dependent upon the decisions of men, who are fallible.

Your fideism may suffice for you, but I don't buy it. Many Protestants today are rethinking the impossible and untenable position of Sola Scriptura and are acknowledging its failures. Some stay Protestant. Some have headed East. And, others have returned to their home in the Catholic Church. Whatever their decision, they are honest in recognizing the unchanging history of the canon and its implications.

God bless,

Carson

[ April 17, 2002, 10:52 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

[Ian Major]

Carson said: 'And, likewise, the Magisterium has a self-attesting nature. The Magisterium is well-recognized, and my following it is a recognition of the inherent authority it has.'

Ian says: The Holy Scripture is self-attesting because it is the Word of God and His Spirit attests to it in the spirits of His people. The RCC is known by its fruit - Babylon, the Mother of Harlots and Abominations of the Earth. Power, Paedophilia, Persecution characterise it, not Love, Truth, Holiness. Christ tolerates no such corruption in His Church - rejection quickly follows refusal to repent (Rev.2&3). Every true Christian has a duty to separate from such wickedness (Rev.18:4). I hope that will apply to you, Carson.

By His Grace

Ian

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Ian,

You wrote, "The Holy Scripture is self-attesting because it is the Word of God and His Spirit attests to it in the spirits of His people."

Then, how is it that millions of Latter Day Saints believe in the inspiration of the Book of Mormon due to its "self-attesting" nature due to its inspiration by the Holy Spirit?

You wrote, "The RCC is known by its fruit - Babylon, the Mother of Harlots and Abominations of the Earth. Power, Paedophilia, Persecution characterise it, not Love, Truth, Holiness."

Well, considering that, presently, the Church is no longer tied to state, no longer persecutes due to its separation from state, and has a history chalk full of saints that put both you and I to shame, your statement is an enigma.

You wrote, "Every true Christian has a duty to separate from such wickedness"

Apparently, you're unfamiliar with the parables of the Kingdom. I suggest meditating upon Matthew 13:24-30. Apparently, Jesus tells us here not to throw the baby out w/ the bathwater, which is exactly what you're advocating.

God bless,

Carson

[ April 20, 2002, 02:17 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

[Ian Major]

Hi, Carson.

You said: 'how is it that millions of Latter Day Saints believe in the inspiration of the Book of Mormon due to its "self-attesting" nature due to its inspiration by the Holy Spirit?'

I say: Because they listen to the voice of a stranger: John 10:3-5. Christ's sheep hear His voice.

You said: 'considering that, presently, the Church is no longer tied to state, no longer persecutes due to its separation from state, and has a history chalk full of saints that put both you and I to shame, your statement is an enigma.'

I say: She has fallen on hard times lately, but even the previous generation witnessed the power she derived from her control of men's consciences: the Ustashi, Spain, Portugal, anywhere where there was an RC majority. Even in minority, the oppression of the RC people by their priests was notorious (sure, it was a voluntary slavery, in as much as social conditioning is voluntary.) The smooth face of Rome as shown in America and other non-catholic nations is not the authentic one of the organisation that claims the pope is ruler over the kings of the earth. I have heard with my own ears an RC friend defend the right of the pope to govern all earthly authorities, based on the assumption that he is 'God on earth'. Is that all a matter of past practice? Why then today are the Evangelicals in East Timor being persecuted by the priests and their flock as they seek to make that nation a Roman Catholic entity? As to some godly people being in the RCC, I have no problem with that - it is just that they should have followed their persecuted brethren outside the camp. I am speaking of genuinely godly people, like Madame Guyon, not merely very religious folk.

You said: 'Apparently, you're unfamiliar with the parables of the Kingdom. I suggest meditating upon Matthew 13:24-30. Apparently, Jesus tells us here not to throw the baby out w/ the bathwater, which is exactly what you're advocating.'

I say: You confuse the field with the church. The field is the world. Better try 'And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector. Mt.18:17; or 'I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner--not even to eat with such a person. For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? But those who are outside God judges. Therefore "put away from yourselves the evil person." 1 Cor.5:9-13.

By His Grace

Ian

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Ian,

You wrote, "Why then today are the Evangelicals in East Timor being persecuted by the priests and their flock as they seek to make that nation a Roman Catholic entity"

What are you talking about?

God bless,

Carson

 

[Ian Major]

Hi, Carson.

I had written 'Why then today are the Evangelicals in East Timor being persecuted by the priests and their flock as they seek to make that nation a Roman Catholic entity' and you asked 'What are you talking about?'

I'm relating an article from 'Sword & Trowel' 2002 No.1, published by the Metropolitan Tabernacle in London. It reports in particular an incident on 8 January 2002 when a group of Christians meeting in a private house were attacked by a group of Catholics, leaving eight of the believers injured, one in a coma. Subsequently, three homes of believers were looted and burnt and death threats made to Mrs. Fatima Gomes, wife of the late founder of many evangelical churches in East Timor.

The UN Peace Keeping Force and the Human Rights Unit detained nine of the perpetrators and the UN CivPol promised to take the case to court.

Evangelicals believe that behind such disturbances is the determination of the Catholic church to become the sole religion in East Timor. Mob violence has therefore been organised, with death promised to any who attempt to rebuild Protestant churches destroyed earlier by Indonesian militia.

By His Grace

Ian

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Ian,

That's interesting. Catholics make up 3% of Indonesia's population (my former college roommate - an Evangelical Protestant and a good friend of mine - is working in Bali presently). That would be quite an event if the Catholics would be able to undertake such a proposal.

And if they did, I'd have to stop being a Catholic Christian after Mary's own heart in my love for Jesus and his Church because.. well, why would I?

Would you pray for my aposolate this summer? To see what we'll be accomplishing, please visit: http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=28;t=000838

God bless,

Carson

[ April 21, 2002, 05:50 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

[Ian Major]

Hi, Carson.

You said; 'That's interesting. Catholics make up 3% of Indonesia's population (my former college roommate - an Evangelical Protestant and a good friend of mine - is working in Bali presently). That would be quite an event if the Catholics would be able to undertake such a proposal.'

I say: It is East Timor I referred to. That became independent of Indonesia recently. Here's a brief background:

'Tue Apr 23, 2002
WELCOME TO EAST TIMOR
THE WORLD’S NEWEST DEMOCRACY

Occupying 24,000 square kilometers on the eastern half of an island in the Timor Sea between Indonesia and Australia, East Timor has a population of approximately 800,000 people. The country is currently administrated by UNTAET (United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor), which is, together with the East Timorese people, rebuilding the nation and putting in place a new, independent democracy.

The path to independence started when an overwhelming majority of the East Timorese on 30 August 1999 voted to separate from Indonesia, which had controlled the territory since 1975. In response, militia groups, backed by elements of the Indonesian armed forces, embarked on a campaign of arson, looting and violence that was brought to an end only when UN forces intervened. Most of East Timor’s infrastructure was destroyed, and the country is still rebuilding after the devastation.

On 30 August 2001, two years after the Popular Consultation, the people of East Timor went to the polls again; this time to elect a Constituent Assembly tasked with writing and adopting a new Constitution and establishing the framework for future elections and a transition to full independence.

The Constituent Assembly and a new East Timorese Government – the Second Transitional Government and its Council of Ministers – is currently governing East Timor during the remaining transitional period before its independence as a democratic and sovereign state, which is expected in the first half of 2002.'

The majority of its people are Roman catholic, with a small Muslim minority.

You said: 'And if they did, I'd have to stop being a Catholic Christian after Mary's own heart in my love for Jesus and his Church because.. well, why would I?'

I say: On its own, this persecution could just be an aberration - but with all the other pride, perversion and wickedness that charecterise the Roman Catholic religion, you have the mandate of Scripture to separate from such ungodliness and follow Christ wherever He leads. That's where the Mary of the Bible went. Mary the Mediatrix of Roman mythology, however, is quite at home in her present company.

You said: 'Would you pray for my aposolate this summer? To see what we'll be accomplishing, please visit: http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=28;t=000838'

I say: I will certainly pray for you, Carson, but not for the idolatry you are practising. The 'sacrifice of the Mass', Hail Mary's, this is not the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints, Jude 3. This is another gospel, another Christ. It is my earnest prayer that you and every dear Roman Catholic will come to the true Christ, without any mediators in between.

By His Grace

Ian