markomalley

CM, I'm sorry, but I have a hard time understanding your writing. I've reviewed this thread pretty thoroughly and the only question I asked was: I think your response was: But as I said above, I have a really hard time understanding your writing. What I got out of that was an encouragement to speak in tongues more, which I considered a non-response. It didn't answer the question. And then after that, you have incessently slammed me in almost all your posts on this thread...either back-handed slams or direct ones like this. Maybe its that my reading comprehension is inadequate, but that's what I've gotten out of this deal. But I do believe that you've misrepresented me. Nevertheless, as I've said to BikerBabe, I do apologize for causing all of this controversy. Had I been aware that I'd cause all the misunderstandings and discomfort with people on this thread, I'd have never started it. I'd have just mulled it over in my mind, trusting the Holy Spirit to illuminate my understanding, and not thrown it out for discussion. I'll try not to start controversial subjects in "Doctrine" again. No promises, but I'll try.

BikerBabe, I am sorry that what I'd shared didn't do anything for you. As I stated in my first post, I was studying the subject of suffering in the Bible. The motivation behind it was in regards to pain that my wife is undergoing, but, as I said in the post immediately above. I can somewhat sympatize with what you're dealing with. In addition to the spine problems, above, my wife also has chronic inflammatory bowel disease (although not Crohn's -- as we've discovered through a couple of laparotomies, it appears to be caused by recurring adhesions in her abdomen). All I can say is that God wants to deliver us. Sometimes that delivery is from our suffering (of whatever variety). But sometimes it is through our suffering (of whatever variety). I know that the above is not of comfort to you and I'm sorry for that, but it does appear to be the way it is. Again, I can sympathize and I am sorry for what you've gone through. I'm sorry I haven't had the words you've sought. In truth, with the controversy that I've caused, I wish that I had just kept this thread to myself and not bothered anybody with it. But its too late for that. So, please accept my apologies instead. I had no intention of causing anybody any additional pain.

Irisheyes, No, I don't hardly type the stuff up. LOL -- There are a number of online bible sites that you can use: http://www.blueletterbible.org http://www.biblegateway.com are two good sites. The blue letter bible has greek as well, linked to strong's word numbers and has a scanned copy of Thayer's lexicon, as well (of course you have to keep in mind Thayer's theological perspective when reading it). A profound point that you make above. And that, in truth, is the reason why I started studying this subject. There are a lot of people with a tremendous amount of suffering in their lives (be it physical, psychological, social, or whatever). I've seen examples of it all the time in numerous people; in fact, I have to live with it all the time...my wife has a degenerative spine. Its something we've lived with for the past 15 years. She's had three surgeries on it so far and is scheduled with her third surgery on her neck on Oct. 17th. Immediately following, she will be going to another doctor to evaluate her for a possible second surgery on her thoractic spine, surgery on her lumbar spine, and possibly surgery on her hip (arthritis). She's not in a wheelchair (yet), but has gone from hobbling to a cane to a walker in little more than a year...and has been told that she will be eventually in a wheelchair. I have a freakin pharmacy in my house...pain patches every day and percocet is just like candy. The love of her life is gardening. She can't do nearly as much as she wants to and, in fact, can't do nearly as much as she used to even a few years ago. And when she does do something, she pays dearly for it afterwards. And there are other issues as well, but the point is that I live with pain every day and am well familiar with its effects, not only on the one with the pain, but the ones who live with and love the person in chronic pain. One thing I've noted in people who have experienced suffering is that there are basically four reactions to it: - The normal one is that the person bears his suffering with grace, but, when it crosses a threshold (as happens from time to time), the frustration leaks out. - There are those I've seen who have been delivered from their suffering (yes, Virginia, miracles do happen) - There are those who are not able to bear suffering with grace, and their lives, and the lives around them, are a living hell - There are those (a very small group), who actually seem to thrive in their suffering. They believe that they have been blessed. Not blessed in spite of their situation, but that their situation is a part of their blessing and, in fact, are thankful for it. And you can see that the reaction is not a fake. I, personally, can't really comprehend that reaction (thus part of my rationale for starting to study this), but I know it exists. I've read about it before in the lives of the saints. I have also seen it personally. (btw, you can replace "suffering" with pain, with poverty, with persecution, or with any specific subset of suffering if you'd like) So, I'm trying to learn if there is something from the Bible that can help explain that fourth reaction listed above. Your statement, "We can't be comfortable if we're in pain, suffering, etc. But let's face it. There's all kinds of pain. You never know who you are standing next to and who you can help by living the love of God. There's broken legs and broken hearts. Things we see and things we don't see," really helped bring this back to where it started. You can't be comfortable, yet some people thrive. And there are all sorts of suffering. Thanks for listening.

Is this supposed to be Mike-bait? ;)

I know what you mean in regards to "feelings" with regards to participating in the sacraments. There are times when I participate in a sacrament and feel absolutely nothing...for example, each time I receive communion, its not like the earth moves, as an example. But I realize a "lack" if I go for a significant period of time without. Having said that, though, I still believe in their efficacy, whether I "feel" different or not after having participated. One thing I'll say, though, as I grow spiritually, I do perceive the effect of the sacraments in my life.

Hey Allen, Why don't you just chill out. Or .... off. Either way is just fine by me.

I understand, from their perspective, that the person they (no-offense) were re-baptizing were not, from their perspective, being re-baptized, as they did not recognize the validity of the earlier baptism. The question I would have is if they would accept a baptism performed by another church? If a person was baptized as a teen or an adult in say, for example, a Lutheran church or an Episcopal church, would they accept that baptism? The point I was originally (1 or 2 pages ago) trying to get at with Danny was that there was no need to be baptized again. There are a number of groups who practice "anabaptism" (anabaptists as opposed to Anabaptists) and it was about those groups that I was speaking...I guess I should have been clearer in what I originally said.

http://www.peterwade.com/articles/wade/radiant.shtml

Are you talking about this one: Wherein I suffer trouble, as an evil doer, [even] unto bonds; but the word of God is not bound. Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory. [it is] a faithful saying: For if we be dead with [him], we shall also live with [him]: If we suffer, we shall also reign with [him]: if we deny [him], he also will deny us: If we believe not, [yet] he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself. (2 Tim 2:9-13 KJV) for which I suffer hardship even to imprisonment as a criminal; but the word of God is not imprisoned. For this reason I endure all things for the sake of those who are chosen, so that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus {and} with {it} eternal glory. It is a trustworthy statement: For if we died with Him, we will also live with Him; If we endure, we will also reign with Him; If we deny Him, He also will deny us; If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself. (2 Tim 2:9-13 NASB) Or this one: But I would ye should understand, brethren, that the things [which happened] unto me have fallen out rather unto the furtherance of the gospel; So that my bonds in Christ are manifest in all the palace, and in all other [places]; And many of the brethren in the Lord, waxing confident by my bonds, are much more bold to speak the word without fear. Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will: The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds: But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel. What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice. For I know that this shall turn to my salvation through your prayer, and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ, According to my earnest expectation and [my] hope, that in nothing I shall be ashamed, but [that] with all boldness, as always, [so] now also Christ shall be magnified in my body, whether [it be] by life, or by death. For to me to live [is] Christ, and to die [is] gain. But if I live in the flesh, this [is] the fruit of my labour: yet what I shall choose I wot not. For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better: Nevertheless to abide in the flesh [is] more needful for you. And having this confidence, I know that I shall abide and continue with you all for your furtherance and joy of faith; That your rejoicing may be more abundant in Jesus Christ for me by my coming to you again. (Phil 2:12-26 KJV) Now I want you to know, brethren, that my circumstances have turned out for the greater progress of the gospel, so that my imprisonment in {the cause of} Christ has become well known throughout the whole praetorian guard and to everyone else, and that most of the brethren, trusting in the Lord because of my imprisonment, have far more courage to speak the word of God without fear. Some, to be sure, are preaching Christ even from envy and strife, but some also from good will; the latter {do it} out of love, knowing that I am appointed for the defense of the gospel; the former proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition rather than from pure motives, thinking to cause me distress in my imprisonment. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and in this I rejoice. Yes, and I will rejoice, for I know that this will turn out for my deliverance through your prayers and the provision of the Spirit of Jesus Christ, according to my earnest expectation and hope, that I will not be put to shame in anything, but {that} with all boldness, Christ will even now, as always, be exalted in my body, whether by life or by death. For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain. But if {I am} to live {on} in the flesh, this {will mean} fruitful labor for me; and I do not know which to choose. But I am hard-pressed from both {directions,} having the desire to depart and be with Christ, for {that} is very much better; yet to remain on in the flesh is more necessary for your sake. Convinced of this, I know that I will remain and continue with you all for your progress and joy in the faith, so that your proud confidence in me may abound in Christ Jesus through my coming to you again. (Phil 1:12-26 NASB) Either way, you bring up a good point.

Evan, Thanks so much for the great discussion points. The difference between a "sacrament" and a "ordinance" is singificnat IMHO. As I posted above, the concept of a sacrament implies a spiritual happening on the interior as the physical action happens on the outside. "Buried with Him in Baptism," "Who God has joined together...," etc. The benefit comes from the doing of it. An ordinance implies, on the other hand, compliance with a directive done for the directive's sake, while not necessarily conferring any spiritual benefit to the doing of it. I, for one, think that this is a HUGE difference. The Anabaptists are a group that practice re-baptism. Yes, you're right that this primarily involved a rejection of infant baptism. As far as it being a reasonable position, if you subscribe to an "ordinance" view of the practice, then you'd likely have a point. However, if you subscribe to the "sacramental" view of the practice, then their position makes little sense (again, IMHO).

OK, fair enough. I'm not asking you to change something in your mind at all.

Rachel, If you don't care what I think about your beliefs then why have you kept on responding? Spell much? If you're going to insult my intelligence, I'd think you'd at least spell the slam properly!

I got the point long ago, the first time you ever posted a question like that to me CM. But, nevertheless, the point of all this is the adoration of God Almighty. Giving Him the due to which He is entitled in the way in which He directed.

CM, "The Divine Liturgy" is a term that has been used for the liturgy that has been in practice for over 2,000 years, originally passed down by the Apostles. I did not invent the term. "The Divine Liturgies" refer, collectively, to those liturgical services in use by the Catholic churches (The Romans, the Anglicans, the Orthodox, the Assyrians, the Maronites, the Copts). Oh, btw, "Liturgy" means a public service. "Divine Liturgy" would then mean "public service to God." The "Mystical Body of Christ" refers to the Church. You have, I am sure, read the "Body of Christ" in multiple places. I am sure you have read that this is a mystery (thus mystical). I hope that helps your understanding. If you google either term, you will note that both are very common usage and hardly something that I made up.

Actually, I tend to agree with you that TWI and fundamentalists/evangelicals generally have that concept wrong. First of all, the word used is the word "saved" not "born again" or "born from above" or "born" anything. So I agree with you, we shall be saved (in the future tense). No, he was not BORN AGAIN, he was raised from the dead. Sure This sounds like the discussion in John 3. Please don't ever assume that the doctrine I believe has anything to do with TWI or any Protestant group. You will make a significant error in your judgement if you fall into that trap. As far as your beliefs, I am not making any assumptions at all. I have, thanks. That's why I totally reject any heretical Protestant doctrine. Oh, btw, here's something to consider: If Jesus was "born again" when he was raised from the dead, then what about all the people who have been raised from the dead. For example: Mat 27:51-53 (NASB) And behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth shook and the rocks were split. The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many. And then Lazarus (Jhn 11:44 (NASB) The man who had died came forth, bound hand and foot with wrappings, and his face was wrapped around with a cloth. Jesus *said to them, "Unbind him, and let him go.") (You can read the rest if you want) The point is that stipulating your assertion that one is "born again" when one is raised from the dead (which I don't agree with, but that's a different argument), your assertion that Jesus was the only one born again has to be incorrect, in light of the above two sections. Q.E.D.

Sir: I was simply responding to the following: Which seemed like it was pretty defensive, in response to what I believed to be perfectly legitimate questions: - What group are you affliliated with that teaches this? (Her answer...she got it from self study, a perfectly legit response) - Do you have any other substantiation for the assertion you have made? (No response to that one yet) Now, if that's a problem, then I'm sorry I asked the questions in the first place.

You bring up a good point about transubstantiation. And it is a very scriptural point, as well. (cf: Jhn 6:35,6:48, 6:51, 6:53, 1 Cor 10:16, 1 Cor 11:24ff, etc.). But to the point of suffering, I would have you note an even that happens prior to the actual communion: the Fraction. During the fraction, the celebrant splits the consecrated host (the Body of Christ). (Note that this is done during any of the ancient liturgies, not just the Latin Rite Mass). The surface meaning behind that is that, during the Last Supper, Christ broke the bread and gave it to his disciples. However, beneath the surface though is the broken body (cf: 1 Cor 11:24). What makes that more profound is if you look at Isiah 53:4-5 (Yet it was our infirmities that he bore, our sufferings that he endured, While we thought of him as stricken, as one smitten by God and afflicted. But he was pierced for our offenses, crushed for our sins, Upon him was the chastisement that makes us whole, by his stripes we were healed.). The connections between the divine liturgies and the mystical Body of Christ are tremendous. Again, the meaning of what's written in Col 1:24 and the other verses I cited in my opening post is HUGE when considered in that light. And I didn't want to get into it... on edit, correction of some spelling errors.

Most people don't come up with theories on their own. I was just asking you a question, not trying to raise your blood pressure. But the question remains: I am curious still.

Kathy... More specific than what you're saying is an understanding of the re-presentation of the Paschal Mystery (btw the Pasch=the unblemished lamb sacrificed during passover) that happens in the Divine Liturgies (the Latin Mass, as well as the Liturgies of St. Mark, St. James, St. Basil, and other Eastern equivalents). That understanding helps a lot. Did you ever consider the fact that there is an altar in heaven? (See Rev 6:9, Rev 8:3-5, and others) Why have an altar if there is no sacrifice (any more)? Did you ever consider the paradox of Christ being portrayed as a Lamb who is standing (thus alive) who appears to have been slain? (Rev 5:6) -- normally when one is slain, one is dead...(yes, I know, God raised Him from the dead...but why, then, is He in heaven still appearing to have been slain?) Did you consider that in 1 Cor 5:7 (Christ our passover is sacrificed for us), the "is sacrificed" is in the aorist tense rather than the past tense? And, of course, we know it was one sacrifice for all. But its interesting to me that the passover sacrifices depicted in the OT pre-figured a proptiation for sins that HAD happened previously. Any blood sacrifice was of that nature. Yet the sacrifice of the Lamb of God covered ALL sins, past, present, and future. And then when you consider that when we are baptized, we become members of the mystical Body of Christ...(cf 1 Cor 12) At that point, the verses that talk about the redemptive nature of suffering, such as Col 1:24 start to make a little sense. But as I said before, my understanding of it is not such that I can really effectively teach it, its still something that I am mulling in my head. I will say this, though, every time I go to Mass, my appreciation for what goes on at the altar grows, particularly as I come to apprehend the above.

Kathy, I, again, would like to highlight Col 1:24 (Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of his body, which is the church,) This concept of "filling up what is lacking" is an extremely powerful concept, I believe. If we really understood verses like "I am crucified with Christ," along with the above verse, would make a lot of people a lot more content with their lives. Imagine, what he is saying here is that he has the privilege of co-operating with Christ in the redemption of man (particularly the Church). This is not to say IN ANY WAY that Christ's sacrifice was not complete...so don't go there...but when we "put on Christ" and are "buried, in baptism, with Christ," I think that we need to set our vision to be a lot fuller. If you look through all the New Testament epistles, you'll see again that Paul talks about identification with the Cross. He talks about us being members of the Body of Christ. And this dualism between the flesh and the interior reality of the new birth. The quote I mentioned from 2 Cor 4 is particularly applicable here. Particularly when one examines it in light of Romans 6ff. However, it takes on new meaning when you look at Col 1:24. It makes the reality of that one body more vivid (at least to me) than ever. In regards to your sister, she led a very peaceful life and had a very peaceful death. She accepted the pain and suffering of her life with extreme grace and was all the better for it. Although she may not have perceived the redemptive qualities that her suffering had for the Body of Christ, she undoubtedly understood the message of the Cross. The suffering and pain that she endured as a member of Christ's Body I'm sure had some effect. What that effect was is, of course, beyond me. But I do know that it will be nice to see "face to face," rather than "through a glass, darkly," so that we'll see the spiritual reality beyond the physical apparation our senses can currently perceive.

I Cor 3:10ff Fire purifies.

Roy, that is a deep subject that you bring up. I think one thing to consider is that time is, in all likelihood, not a constraint or a restriction to God in any way. Our perception of time and space is not the same as God's. I don't pretend to be able to perceive it from God's perspective, but I can perceive the difference and recognize that its there. Remember the verse in 1 Cor 13: "now we see through a glass, darkly?" In regards to your second point, the greek word "hora" is a little more generic than "hour," as it is used in that citation from the Gospel of St. John. It should be considered a generic unit of time and its meaning should be gotten from the context where its stated. But as to the content, please observe the following verses from the Gospel of St. Matthew (27:51ff) And behold, the veil of the sanctuary was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth quaked, rocks were split, tombs were opened, and the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised. And coming forth from their tombs after his resurrection, they entered the holy city and appeared to many. Consider the story of Lazarus, also. Didn't those occurrences happen in the same "season" (unit of time) in which the Lord spoke those words you quoted? Then you can consider the new birth? Were we not all dead in trespasses and sins? Did we not hear the word of the Lord and lived? Then you can consider the general resurrection? Are we not promised that the dead in Christ shall rise? To me, that sounds like an hour coming (and now is).

Stumbled on the following site: Theowiki -- that has the look and feel of the Wikipedia, but concentrating on various varieties of theology. It is largely unfilled yet (appears to be pretty new), but it might be a place for the budding theologians that hang here in Doctrinal to be able to post their writings, studies, and conclusions...for a broader audience than that which would read them on GSC. The site appears to deal respectfully with all belief systems, also. FWIW?

What's gotten me is a lot of the "little" things that worked their way into my speech: "Wouldn't you be blessed to..." = do it NOW "Its not available..." = No etc. And then the so-called "biblical" definitions of words that were jammed in our heads: grace...I, for years, recited "God's undeserved favor" in my head whenever I heard the word spirit...are we talking definition 1(a), definition (4), or what? and of course, for years when I read Matthew 28:19, I had the thought: this is a forgery inserted centuries later (never mind that this is a false statement and I KNEW it, I kept hearing that in the back of my head) Thank GOD that this kind of stuff has faded largely (other than the memories), but, man it was insiduous.

Well, if somebody PM'd you, shouldn't you keep it P? Otherwise, doesn't etiquitte say that you are supposed to share the entire message with the whole group? ;)