Wondering About Faith (Ephesians 2)

[TaylorDonBarret]

Scripture also says God will cover you "with his feathers." (Psa 91:4) I guess by your simplistic criteria, God is a chicken, because we must always simply believe whatever literal interpretation comes to our individualistic minds.

You are reading it wrong. Hell is not literally a place where people need to drink water. It is symbolic for a deprived soul in need of Christ, the living water.

i did not say that everything in the bible should be taken strictly literal. poetry should be read as poetry, history as history, prophecy as prophecy, figurative as figurative, etc.

you can form your own opinion, but there if we take the story about lazarus and the rich man by itself, no one is going to interpret it as figurative or symbolic.

so, my understanding may be wrong, or maybe yours is. its good not to claim to know something for a fact, its good not to state something as fact, unless there is clear evidence proving it to be.

your preference based upon the traditions that you currently gravitate towards influence you to interpret that scripture in a way that is not clearly the authors intention. now, you may quote other verses elsewhere in the bible to defend your position, but this one about lazarus and the rich man certainly paints a different picture than the one you are painting.

it is funny that you are more than willing to take the scriptures concerning the Lord's supper to be literal to the point of cannibalism, but this one about hell you find symbolic.

 

[DHC]

"Shall be" saved has absolutely nothing to say about present timeline. In fact, you just strengthened my argument because "shall be" is future tense. Thanks.

Hello Aenon.

Don't thank me just yet.

Luke 19:9
And Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because he, too, is a son of Abraham.

Present tense, 'Today' salvation has arrived.

Ephesians 2
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;

Past tense in this verse Aenon, salvation has already been granted through Grace. These folk are already
seated with Christ in heaven.

There are three observable tenses used in the scripture to describe salvation.

 

[Br. Bear]

Greetings,
@Spockrates and brothers in Christ,

beware lest ye fall through the warring of your flesh. An enmity against the LORD and most surely your soul.
May i present you this Scripture to consider before going any further on your hunt to find treasures that somehow you are convinced in need of apart from the magnificent treasures of God found only in Jesus Christ the Lord.
Many have fallen snare to digging deeper that they are prepared or indeed willing to enter and others have fallen into the pits dug that carry no water nor offer any hope.
Beware as the devil does roam around seeking whom he may devour.
We seek and consider it a googly thing and even justify ourselves (most abhorrently so, at that, for our Justification is in Christ alone); do we neglect to consider that one much stronger than our fleshy selves is also seeking and has been at it much longer than we ourselves all put together?
We have the victory in Christ over the devil only in that the power of sin and death has been eliminated from our judgement in Christ and we must beware though that we enter not into temptation and give place to the devil by neglecting the salvation offered unto men, found only in the Son of God.

Slow down and even be still and consider Him. He is the author and finisher of our faith, not we ourselves and too much leaning on our own understanding is presenting a way for folly and much grief.
After studying much and neglecting the faith, relying upon our fleshly carnal minds to support a doctrine delivered not by God, we may find ourselves unsatisfied with the grace and love that has been bestowed upon us as sinners. Study is good and searching is good but too much is too much and while one may wish to discover all the secrets of God we can neglect waiting upon Him and being faithful with that which He has so far given us.
A warning to all, in love.
Please, I ask that we cease from trying to be smarter that others but rather that with sincerity we remember that if we have any truth it is by grace alone entrusted to us, to be wise with and to share with humility and meekness, not boasting or pride. A servant that forgets the mercy and grace given by the Master is in for a sorry end.

Romans 10:9-11
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on Him shall not be ashamed.

Please do read all of Romans 10, keeping in mind what all have said here but most importantly seeking the wisdom that the Lord has for you regarding the subject of this thread.

It is pointless arguing man's wisdom, brothers. Why do it? to put Christ to shame or to glorify your own stupidity? I say this in love for we all can turn away and cause stumbling blocks and we can all boast, that is evident.
A man who considers himself high will be brought low. Beware lest when ye think ye have won, you find that you have only brought destruction and a snare upon yourselves and others with you.

There is a wisdom which appears to those who entertain it to be above all others but it is nothing but vanity and vexation of the spirit.
Stephen was stoned to death and knew nothing of the orthodox ways not of calvin or any other but Christ, what about you?
Christ is made unto us wisdom.

Bless you ....><>

In tenderness He sought me,

In tenderness He sought me,
Weary and sick with sin,
And on His shoulders brought me
Into His flock again.
While angels in His presence sang
Until the courts of heaven rang.

Oh, the love that sought me!
Oh, the blood that bought me!
Oh, the grace that brought me to the flock,
Wondrous grace that brought me to the flock!

2
He washed the bleeding sin-wounds,
And poured in oil and wine;
He whispered to assure me,
“I’ve found thee, thou art Mine:”
I never heard a sweeter voice,
It made my aching heart rejoice.

Oh, the love that sought me!
Oh, the blood that bought me!
Oh, the grace that brought me to the flock,
Wondrous grace that brought me to the flock!

3
He pointed to the nail-prints,
For me His blood was shed;
A mocking crown so thorny,
Was placed upon His head:
I wondered what He saw in me,
To suffer such deep agony.

Oh, the love that sought me!
Oh, the blood that bought me!
Oh, the grace that brought me to the flock,
Wondrous grace that brought me to the flock!

4
I’m sitting in His presence,
The sunshine of His face,
While with adoring wonder
His blessings I retrace.
It seems as if eternal days
Are far too short to sound His praise.

Oh, the love that sought me!
Oh, the blood that bought me!
Oh, the grace that brought me to the flock,
Wondrous grace that brought me to the flock!

5
So while the hours are passing,
All now is perfect rest;
I’m waiting for the morning,
The brightest and the best,
When He will call us to His side,
To be with Him, His spotless Bride.

Oh, the love that sought me!
Oh, the blood that bought me!
Oh, the grace that brought me to the flock,
Wondrous grace that brought me to the flock!

-William Spencer Walton

 

[Aenon]

i did not say that everything in the bible should be taken strictly literal. poetry should be read as poetry, history as history, prophecy as prophecy, figurative as figurative, etc.

you can form your own opinion, but there if we take the story about lazarus and the rich man by itself, no one is going to interpret it as figurative or symbolic.

so, my understanding may be wrong, or maybe yours is. its good not to claim to know something for a fact, its good not to state something as fact, unless there is clear evidence proving it to be.

your preference based upon the traditions that you currently gravitate towards influence you to interpret that scripture in a way that is not clearly the authors intention. now, you may quote other verses elsewhere in the bible to defend your position, but this one about lazarus and the rich man certainly paints a different picture than the one you are painting.

it is funny that you are more than willing to take the scriptures concerning the Lord's supper to be literal to the point of cannibalism, but this one about hell you find symbolic.

If I keep saying the same thing over and over, perhaps it will sink in. It doesn't matter what you or I think about what scripture means. If the apostolic tradition did not interpret the story of Lazarus the way you do, then we should not accept that interpretation. It's really not that complicated. Look back in history and read how the church interpreted these things through their oral tradition.

 

[TaylorDonBarret]

If I keep saying the same thing over and over, perhaps it will sink in. It doesn't matter what you or I think about what scripture means. If the apostolic tradition did not interpret the story of Lazarus the way you do, then we should not accept that interpretation. It's really not that complicated. Look back in history and read how the church interpreted these things through their oral tradition.

I am more than willing to consider the interpretation of the Apostles and of the Apostles successors. Please, can you provide me with some information about how the Apostles and the Apostle's successors interpreted this verse about lazarus and the rich man?

now, i know you will say that the orthodox believe hell to be a metaphor for agony in the presence of God; however, how far can we trace back that belief? just because someone says it now, does that mean that people said and back then? and, if people said it back then, does that mean they were correct?

the amount of information that we have from the first two centuries is very little. the bulk of it that we do have is the scriptures themselves. and after a few centuries, we have to be very careful about what we rely on. as you know, the winners write history. once the catholic church (which was the orthodox church) became a political body who knows what they did to official church documents, the writings of apostles, etc etc.

many people say that certain traditions, like for example the emphasis on the lord's supper and the veneration of saints and angels, were emphasized by the roman catholic church in order to mesh the pagan religions together with Christianity.

as you i am sure you can tell, i do not trust the opinions of men. rather, i trust in the Word of God alone. I do indeed seek the opinions of men to help me form my opinions. for example, i sought out your opinions via private message. i sought out Mtthew Henry's opinions by buying his bible commentary. i sought out the early church father's opinions by researching them. i sought out paul washer and john piper's opinions by watching their youtube sermons. i seek out the opinions of pastors in my area by attending church, etc. but i will not elevate any of these mens opinions above that of scripture, i will only let them influence by interpretation of scripture.

for example, the bible clearly teaches that sin entered the world through one man (Adam), and death entered the world through sin. so, doing basic math with the geneolgies provided in the bible i can tell you with certainty that death never occured on planet earth until roughly 6,000 years ago. there is absolutely nothing that any human being could say to make me believe otherwise.

likewise, the plain reading of the story of lazarus and the rich man, i think, should be taken as plainly written. now, as you know, i am somewhat partial to your understanding of hell and it does make a whole lot of sense to some degree. so i am open to an interpretation of lazarus and the rich man that might be in some form of parable. however, i am not going to go so far as to dismiss the plain reading of the story and go out and teach something to be fact that is not clearly taught in scripture as fact.

also, you claim the orthodox tradition.. but you dismiss the catholic tradition. so there is a bit of hypocrisy there.

 

[Thiscrosshurts]

likewise, the plain reading of the story of lazarus and the rich man, i think, should be taken as plainly written. now, as you know, i am somewhat partial to your understanding of hell and it does make a whole lot of sense to some degree. so i am open to an interpretation of lazarus and the rich man that might be in some form of parable. however, i am not going to go so far as to dismiss the plain reading of the story and go out and teach something to be fact that is not clearly taught in scripture as fact.

There is much to consider on that subject and that parable and there was recently a thread that began covering the subject.
What If the rich man opened his eyes and suddenly perceived the condition of his temporal self through eternal eyes.

I have to wonder why Jesus said "consider the cost of building a tower".
Is the "tower" salvation?Or does he mean something beyond salvation.
Why didn't he say consider the cost of NOT building a tower?

am studying the subject and welcome your input.

 

[Thiscrosshurts]

If I keep saying the same thing over and over, perhaps it will sink in. It doesn't matter what you or I think about what scripture means. If the apostolic tradition did not interpret the story of Lazarus the way you do, then we should not accept that interpretation. It's really not that complicated. Look back in history and read how the church interpreted these things through their oral tradition.

1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

Some of us believe in that anointing.

Hebrews 8:11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
You see,church Fathers,Apostles,prophets,priests,pastors,teachers,evangelists,police,judges,lawyers,doctors and insurance peddlers are ALL temporary careers.

His sheep still know his voice.

 

[Aenon]

1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

Some of us believe in that anointing.

I'm sorry, I can't help but laugh at how you interpret that verse. *cough cough 33,820 denominations in America alone cough* Gotta love that individualistic western church, and the people who help perpetuate the nonsensical innovations by twisting the ancient understandings of various texts to fit modern understandings.

 

[Thiscrosshurts]

I'm sorry, I can't help but laugh at how you interpret that verse. *cough cough 33,820 denominations in America alone cough* Gotta love that individualistic western church, and the people who help perpetuate the nonsensical innovations by twisting the ancient understandings of various texts to fit modern understandings.

Let's not forget the many different sect that split off like the Copts and the church in ethiopia.
Paul and Peter even disagreed but at least they tried to let the Holy spirit speak as well as they could hear.
It seemed right to them not to add burdens to the gentiles that they themselves failed to carry.
Ever since then that freedom in Christ has been assaulted by men,liars.
Let every man be a liar but let God be true.

None of these churches or sects have set the world free so maybe it's time to get to know the shepherd's voice first hand.

 

[TaylorDonBarret]

There is much to consider on that subject and that parable and there was recently a thread that began covering the subject.
What If the rich man opened his eyes and suddenly perceived the condition of his temporal self through eternal eyes.

I have to wonder why Jesus said "consider the cost of building a tower".
Is the "tower" salvation?Or does he mean something beyond salvation.
Why didn't he say consider the cost of NOT building a tower?

am studying the subject and welcome your input.

Well, if we put that verse in context, Jesus had just said that we cannot be His disciple unless we hate our mother, our brother, our father, and even our own life. Then He goes on to compare trying to follow Him to building a tower. We must first make sure that we have all of the resources to build the tower, or else we won't complete it. Likewise, if we try to follow Jesus but love our family our own self more than we love Him, then we will end up being led astray by the devil.

I'm sorry, I can't help but laugh at how you interpret that verse. *cough cough 33,820 denominations in America alone cough* Gotta love that individualistic western church, and the people who help perpetuate the nonsensical innovations by twisting the ancient understandings of various texts to fit modern understandings.

how many churches existed during the first few decades? do you think there has only been one true church since the beginning? read the book of revelation, Jesus speaks to 7 different churches separately. While these were separated by geographical distance, if you study the early church you will see a wife, diverse, broad range of beliefs and churches, you could even call them denominations. it wasnt until the roman catholic church (which was the orthodox church too) became a political body and starting persecuting other churches into submission that there was any semblance of a single church. you have a long reign of the roman catholic church (the orthodox) up untill the middle of the second millenium. during that time many new doctrines were formed and made dogma, and we dont have any good reason for believing that any of those dogma's were believed by the early, early church.

 

[DHC]

I'm sorry, I can't help but laugh at how you interpret that verse. *cough cough 33,820 denominations in America alone cough* Gotta love that individualistic western church, and the people who help perpetuate the nonsensical innovations by twisting the ancient understandings of various texts to fit modern understandings.

Hello Aenon.

On the subject of the traditional church, do you accept or reject the amended Nicene Creed?

 

[Aenon]

Hello Aenon.

On the subject of the traditional church, do you accept or reject the amended Nicene Creed?

The filioque was an innovation of the 11th century, so I reject it in favor of the original.

 

[Aenon]

Let's not forget the many different sect that split off like the Copts and the church in ethiopia.
Paul and Peter even disagreed but at least they tried to let the Holy spirit speak as well as they could hear.
It seemed right to them not to add burdens to the gentiles that they themselves failed to carry.
Ever since then that freedom in Christ has been assaulted by men,liars.
Let every man be a liar but let God be true.

None of these churches or sects have set the world free so maybe it's time to get to know the shepherd's voice first hand.

I can't believe you're comparing copts to 33,000+ Protestant denominations, as if it's somehow comparable.

 

[Aenon]

Well, if we put that verse in context, Jesus had just said that we cannot be His disciple unless we hate our mother, our brother, our father, and even our own life. Then He goes on to compare trying to follow Him to building a tower. We must first make sure that we have all of the resources to build the tower, or else we won't complete it. Likewise, if we try to follow Jesus but love our family our own self more than we love Him, then we will end up being led astray by the devil.


how many churches existed during the first few decades? do you think there has only been one true church since the beginning? read the book of revelation, Jesus speaks to 7 different churches separately. While these were separated by geographical distance, if you study the early church you will see a wife, diverse, broad range of beliefs and churches, you could even call them denominations. it wasnt until the roman catholic church (which was the orthodox church too) became a political body and starting persecuting other churches into submission that there was any semblance of a single church. you have a long reign of the roman catholic church (the orthodox) up untill the middle of the second millenium. during that time many new doctrines were formed and made dogma, and we dont have any good reason for believing that any of those dogma's were believed by the early, early church.

No, the seven churches were not seven different denominations. Don't be ridiculous. They were all one church holding to the apostles doctrine. They were entirely united on doctrine, because they had people like Paul directly writing to their bishops. There was only one body of Christ until the great east-west schism of 1054.

 

[DHC]

The filioque was an innovation of the 11th century, so I reject it in favor of the original.

Do you accept the amended Nicene Creed (AD 381), or do you accept the original Nicene Creed (AD 325).
Apparently there were two creeds, one was formulated in Nicea (AD 325), the other in Constantinople (AD 381).

 

[Aenon]

Do you accept the amended Nicene Creed (AD 381), or do you accept the original Nicene Creed (AD 325).
Apparently there were two creeds, one was formulated in Nicea (AD 325), the other in Constantinople (AD 381).

Nobody uses the 325 creed. The 381 creed became the standard, and the 1054 creed was an innovation.

 

[DHC]

Nobody uses the 325 creed. The 381 creed became the standard, and the 1054 creed was an innovation.

Do you accept the following tenet from the amended Nicene Creed (AD 381)?
We affirm one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

 

[Aenon]

Do you accept the following tenet from the amended Nicene Creed (AD 381)?
We affirm one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

I affirm all of it.

 

[DHC]

I affirm all of it.

The tenet "We affirm one baptism for the forgiveness of sins" is nothing more than an error.

John the Baptist taught "baptism for the forgiveness of sins", Jesus did not teach "baptism for the forgiveness of sins".

Jesus taught the following only for the forgiveness of sins.

Matthew 26:28
for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins

The early church bishops had no real idea of what they were talking about when they mentioned
baptism.

 

[DHC]

Lol wow you're ignorant.

Hello Aenon.

There never was only 'one baptism' Aenon for the forgiveness of sins, there were two baptisms.

Acts 11:16
And I remembered the word of the Lord, how He used to say, 'John baptized with water, but you shall be
baptized with the Holy Spirit.'