What is Progressive Faith

As I said on his site when he first posted this, I think this is Bruce Prescott's finest theological reflection I've read. CAP, the Center for Progressive Christianity, the Network of Spiritual Progressives, etc. should adopt this as their vision statement.

He calls this progressive faith,but I submit this is sound, healthy, Christian faith! Lord in Heaven! I wish all christian would think this way!

Billy Strain

This is some of the deepest, most profound thought I've read about the Christian faith in a long time!

Plenty to meditate on in that list...

Amen to all of the above. I would like to note that Bruce has kindly given us permission to use his essay as our Faith Vision Statement for the USF CAP Chapter.
He has also issued a challenge to all of the rest of us. A challenge to put these words into practice. A challenge to "walk the walk". I am reminded of one of the sayings that my late mother(God rest her soul) had above her desk at her nurses station. It said:"God loves you and I'm trying my best to."
Bruce has written an excellent statement of what Progressive Christianity is now it is up to all of us to show the world what it can do.

I cannot make head nor tail of it - it's far too complicated and miles away from "The simplicity that is in Christ".

The Lord gives us His Faith when we are called Eph 2:8 and our faith is dead until we do works James 2:17. That's Faith.

Most of the above article is confusing faith with fruits of the Spirit. Two different things entirely.

y2t

Y2T, you are right about the ACT of faith, but we also use the term "faith" to refer to the contents of our deepest convictions, religious or otherwise. Bruce is talking about the shape of such convictions and the WAY one holds them. He is arguing for a progressive "life of faith" or "faith perspective" in contrast with the kinds of faith perspectives which lead to various fundamentalisms. Clearer now?

"Clearer now?"

No, not really, for we either believe or we don't believe, I do not see where our convictions come into it. If we committed ourselves to The Lord at Baptism and confessed our sins, that's it, there is nothing more to it.

All The Lord asked was "Will I find faith on the earth when I return" If we show our faith in action i.e. works or risky living as I call it, then again, that's it.

How does one show or display a 'life of faith' or their 'deepest convictions'? How does this affect anything?

What are 'faith perspectives' that lead to fundamentalisms? It's as clear as mud to me.

y2t

"First, and foremost"...
The idea of "sympathetic imagination" as described is but vain, human philosophy. True faith is not simply about living by the 'golden rule'. The same Jesus who prescribed that 'rule' also prescribed faith in Him alone, as the only way to a relationship with God.
Second...
There is no lasting virtue in the Christian 'seeing himself throught eyes of the Jew', the Jew seeing himself through the eyes of the Muslim, etc.. True faith (and love) is the exercise of the the ability to see yourself (and others) through God's eyes, as revealed in His Word. Without Christ, that person (yourself or someone else) is lost... With Him, he has life. "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." --John 3:36
Third...
There is no 'hope' in that which is presented by vain "imagination". 'Envisioned' relationships with 'self, family, community, nation,' etc., do not give hope or salvation from guilt shame and sorrow. And the only answer, a "new birth" cannot be accurately summarized as "some better way of living"--it can only come as a result of true faith in Jesus alone.
Fourth...
So called 'progressive faith' is not strong faith... It is no faith. "Fundamental" is synonymous with "foundational". Without a strong 'foundation' there can be no strength. All faith is built on 'fundamentals'. Biblical faith is built on Biblical fundamentals, and 'progressive faith' is built on the fundamentals of humanism. The so-called 'progressive Christian' can be more accurately called a 'humanist fundamentalist'. When the storm comes, the 'progressive' house will fall, not having the right foundation.
Fifth...
It is not 'humility' when one thinks himself qualified to 'interpret' as he sees fit, the only Message which has already been 'forever settled' and exists not by man's "private interepretation" to begin with, but by Divine inspiration. Humility is manifest in one whose faith far supercedes his human intellectual understanding.
Sixth...
A 'growing faith' in nothing--produces nothing.
Seventh...
'Progressive faith' "welcomes doubt" because doubt is the mother thereof. True faith believes and obeys the Word which commands us NOT to doubt. Doubt is not a welcome friend of true faith, it is the enemy. And it is, I might add, the 'defeated' enemy of true faith... 'Doubt knocked on the door--faith answered-- and there was no one there.'
Eighth...
'Progressive faith' does not seek to "convert" others by example, dialogue, or anything else. It sees no need to 'convert'. It offers no reason for conversion. The so-called 'progressive' sees everyone okay, just the way they are.
Ninth...
'Progressive faith' is nothing BUT 'lip service'. The "waging peace and working for justice" is honorably motivated but does nothing to change the root of hate and injustice--the heart of man. Only the gospel of Jesus Christ has the power to effect that change. But when people think they have 'progressed' past "the foolishness of preaching" which God Himself chose, as the only 'action' that can effect change; they labor in the vanity of human weakness and the deceit of vain philosophy--which cannot change anyone. Good works should (and always do) accompany true faith... But leave out the faith part--the preaching of the gospel part--the salvation in Jesus alone part--and you have nothing but vain works and 'lip service'.
Finally...
The 'progressive' thought that responsible stewardship of the planet 'makes life possible' for future generations is the epitome of arrogance and irreverence. It is Jesus, who 'holds all things together, by the Word of His power', not the miniscule actions of those who think they have anywhere close to enough power to save the planet and its environment. The Bible is clear. Man does not have the ability, even if he wanted to, to destroy this planet. God has declared exactly how this world will be destroyed, and it will not happen until He is ready. He is concerned about the souls of men, not where we drill for oil or how much air conditioning we use. I cannot see how diversion from God's revealed agenda, which has eternal ramifications, can in any way be considered "progress".
EH

Nothing, absolutely nothing, can make clearer what faith is & then what it becomes in focus for a life of commitment to "fundies" [as nice as I can be to Trolls & interlopers] who SADLY believe that "Jesus only" utterance(s) is all that is necessary & that we have NO stewardship for the environment because "God has declared exactly how this world will be destroyed..." Is it any wonder why we have difficulties with other religious groups when there is no allowance for "intra" religious dialogue? When there is NO need for fundamentalists to step outside themselves & like Bobbie Burns, "...see outselves as others see us"? When "fundamental is synonymous with foundational?" When there is no examination of power-lust which makes their pseudoreligious attempts at faith a political endeavor at submission [i.e., like a dog would be trained] & hence non-religious? That their subtexts against Peace & Peace processes are really URtexts of political violence [i.e., now, the last 3 weeks in the Middle East]?....And the list goes on: fundies ,,,and especially the fundies who feel it their necessity to TROLL this site since ALL but their ILK are not yet saved according to their biblical literalist formula,,, will never get it! We should thank G-d for that since we wouldn't want to be linked to these imposters!

Michael the leveller pointed out recently that fundamentalism like the above-noted has only existed in the U.S. not much over a century, a stalwart note of history not to be refuted. Tell me this: how is it that historical Christianity [in all its contributory forms] could have gotten it so wrong for so many centuries, that now God's instrument is a bunch of thumping illiterates, lately appeared? While it's a nice confirmation of ahistorical groups, we certainly don't need nary a bit more of these idgits! I am long tired of explaining that barnacles ain't no damn part of the ship but a detriment to it. These crustascaens need scraping off, once and for all [read: banned from this site].

If there's any justice, it was that Bruce's post was found first by those who could read & appreciate it. I could tweak it a bit, but just let me say I liked the mention of hermeneutics a lot, even the Heideggerean tone of the first point before the term & another appeared with it later. Our common prayer must be, "God save Christianity in America from christian fundamentalism!"

A Michael Lerner originated 'statement' for peace in the Middle East solicits sane signatures for those willing to find it.

Mr Hander,

You said:

"Is it any wonder why we have difficulties with other religious groups when there is no allowance for "intra" religious dialogue?"

As a Believer in Jesus Christ I am not religious and the word 'religion' never passed The Lord's lips. Following Jesus Christ is not religion. All religion is of The Devil - period.

Now if we follow what you say, then Light is contaminating itself with darkness. Our job as Christians is to plainly tell followers of other religions they are wasting their time, for Salvation is through Jesus Christ and Him alone.

y2t

Hander,

Your arrogance is only exceeded by your ignorance of God and of spiritual things. You are a spiritual moron.

You need not feel linked in any way with Bible believers. No one who can dicern between believers and infidels would ever confuse you with the former. And you can be certain that God is not confused either.

Eddie,

Great post.

Er, thanks, Arlen, I think, but all I said was that Dispensationalism originated in the 19th C. Some form of Fundamentalism dates probably to the 18th C.--but no earlier because it is a MODERN movement, a reaction to the modern era: the Enlightenment, the rise of science and technology (and evolutionary theory), modern complicated cities (with resulting breakdown of families), faster communications, etc.

But although I disagree strongly with fundamentalists and wish this site didn't attract so many (are CAP members trolling around fundamentalist sites?), I don't have such utter contempt for them as you seem to. I can't help it. I HAVE to dialogue with fundamentalists--'cause some are my kinfolk and many more are my spiritual kin--not just in the broad family of Christ sense, but in the sense of coming from some of the same sub-traditions.

"Our job as Christians is to plainly tell followers of other religions they are wasting their time"

Wow. God must have been truly ashamed of Jesus when--on the subject of salvation--he spoke of a "heretic" Samaritan who showed compassion to a stranger.

And if that weren't enough, there are countless opportunities where Jesus failed to "plainly tell followers of other religions they are wasting their time".

Evidently Mr. yes2truth is here to correct where Jesus failed.

Michael,

I admire your persistence to dialogue with fundamentalists (trolls included) on the CAP message board.

The sad thing is, on this thread in particular we've only been offered Straw Man fallacies, nitpickery, and blatant name-calling. I'm just waiting for endless obsessions over gay sex to start up and, yet again, sabotage dialogue from ever happening.

Professor Hander, even at your wordy best, you fail to effectively doctor up so blatant of lies. It's the weakness of your message, sir.
Bobby Burns was but a poet who could skilfully articulate the thoughts of many, when he expressed his desire for 'some power, the giftie gie us, to see oursels as ithers see us' (sorry if I mispelled any of that--it was from memory). That which Burns wished for, once again, is not the answer. To see ourselves as God sees us, is more important, and most necessary, if godly change is to be the outcome.
Your "intra-religious dialogue" is worthless too, as it is not within the authority of a Bible-believing Christian to make any changes to Biblical doctrine--which leaves no room for compromise with other so-called religions. This is why Jesus practiced no such thing. He taught NOT as the Scribes and Pharisees--or the 'progressives' either. 'Never a man spoke like this man'.
Jesus did not speak like those of us you call "fundies" either--but we do our best to speak as He did. And we do so with that same authority--the authority He gave to every believer--to speak the truth, in love, and NOT to change it.
For your further education, Professor, allow me to point out that my statement that 'fundamental' is synonymous with 'foundational'--which statement you ridiculed--was not my own invention. The dictionary seems to agree...
Fundamental -- "Of or pertaining to the foundation or basis; essential; basal"
Your misunderstanding of the definition of 'fundamental' must also be related to your apparent lack of historical knowledge. No... We who preach the same exact message that Jesus, James, Peter, John, and the apostle Paul preached, have been around a lot longer than a century or two. And over the past 2000 years or so, we have yet to 'progress' from those same 'fundamentals' they taught and wrote about. Now, this may scare you, but we're going to be around 'til the end--the end you believe is never going to happen. We'll be around until Jesus comes, if it takes another 2000 years. And we will be around on web sites like this one, as long as it remains as it is--a public site, open to all, with an open invitation to anyone to "post a comment". If this is 'your' site, then I am here at 'your' invitation. Besides... I'm sure you wouldn't have it any other way. You're the best at putting out the bait for those like Gary, Yes2truth, Myself, and some of the others who love Truth and will defend it against your nonsense; not just to take the bait and engage in "intra-religious dialogue", but for the sake of the gospel and out of concern for your unlearned and unwitting prey.
EH

Mr Tenoch,

Of course I am here to correct you: Am I my brother's keeper!?

It's no good twisting Scripture to suit your Laodicean condition. I am here to warn you of that vile spiritual condition i.e. just so much spue in God's mouth. Rev 3.

The Lord is always patient and kind and knows that when the spue hits the deck it will be a very uncomfortable ride - to say the least. He has always sent His messengers to rescue wayward wretches from their foolishness and that is why I am here.

If you reject what I say, then so be it, for you will have had your witness and when you stand before God will be without excuse.

As for those of other religions, they, like the Samaritan are 'righteous' in that they know no better (which God respects). This in turn makes them more righteous than you Mr Tenoch because you do know better, but like the Pharisees you have lost your way.

Repent Mr Tenoch.

y2t

yes2truth,

Thank you for further clarifying your "Jesus-Was-Wrong" stance.

Sorry, but I believe that Jesus' teachings are more profound than yours.

You're going to have to work much harder in order to convince others to be ashamed of Jesus' gospel...

Mr Tenoch,

Thank you for confirming your wretched condition.

y2t

It is pretty obvious that Bruce has come out with something really substancial and valuable- to have the trolls come in and try to wreck everything like they have.

In a sense, it is a backwards vote of confidence.

Mr Bowers,

To call Brothers of Jesus Christ insulting names like 'trolls' only confirms the opposite of what you're saying.

Jesus Christ was frequently insulted by the religious men of His day, so you are just par for the course.

Anyway, what do you expect when people voice their Laodicean condition in public - accolades and sycophancy!? In your dreams.

y2t

Actually, Eddie has touched on some good points. I'd like to address them as best I may.

1. Well, this has actually been (and continues to be) MY argument all along. That it is Faith in Jesus Christ HIMSELF that will redeem and save, but having Faith "in Him alone" is not what the neocon "christian" movement espouses. First of all, in order to have complete Faith in Jesus Christ that means you have to acknowledge that His teachings supercede everything else, and this they (neocon "christians") are unwilling to do. They make it very clear that (to them) the entire Bible is equal to The Master's teachings, and that if The Bible in its entirety is not "infallible" (that is to say, if The Bible ITSELF is not "God", as ONLY God can be infallible, and nothing else, so we're dealing with bibliolatry here) then God would somehow be a liar or a "cheat". In other words, simply put, their Faith dissolves beyond the pages of a book, a book which has been translated, edited, added to, etc. for nearly two thousand years. Mind you, a book filled with great wisdom and answers, much of it God-inspired absolutely, but not "infallible". Contradictions and misinterpretations may abound within the pages of a man-made book, but in the actuality of Jesus Christ there are none of these. One must actually live by HIS injunctions, and that includes, among other things, a committment to the poor, the sick, and the oppressed, turning one's back on earthly wealth, rejecting a war-mentality, avoidance of gross public displays of piety, and attempting to focus on The Spirit of The Law as opposed to The Letter. These are all things Jesus taught, and things which the "Religious Right" have largely either ignored, gone directly against, or put far down on their "to do" list. IF one truly believes that it is through Jesus Christ that one is redeemed and saved, then one accepts His instructions to go out and DO what He has said to do, and also that it is Jesus HIMSELF that is The Living Word, The Incarnate Word of God. Progressives, in putting their priorities in order, have done a much better job of this unquestionably than have their more conservative brothers and sisters. The concept among the neocon "christians" seems to be that if one just goes to church on Sundays and yells "Praise Jesus, I'm washed in the blood", votes the right way, and claims The Bible to be infallible, that they can then go out and lie, cheat, steal, support war and usury and intolerance, etc. and they've still got a "ticket to Heaven" (not unlike the slave-owners of the 19th Century who considered themselves "good Christians", or the many supporters of continued segregation in the 1960s who attended church regularly and claimed biblical inerrancy). Hmmmm...well, somehow under the category of "What Would Jesus Do" I don't think that kind of "Faith" makes the grade. The Golden Rule is this: To love God with all your heart, mind, and soul....but EQUALLY to love your neighbor as yourself...On these two Great Commandments hang ALL (that's ALL) The Law and The Prophets too. The Progressives win on this one hands down.

2.Pretty much in agreement here, except that to deny that God has manifested in more than one religion is trying to "put God in a box". In other words, there may certainly be "other paths" to God that are legitimate. What we do know is that the DIRECT path to God is through Jesus Christ, because Jesus IS God. A Christian must never "deny" Christ, and is called to spread The Good News (and there is a continued debate of course between Fundies and Progressives about just WHAT this message consists of), but people cannot be coerced to accept Christ. And certainly people in other nations, who have grown up believing Christianity to be a false religion, are certainly not going to be "damned" by God for having the misfortune of not being raised in a Christian culture. Progressives once again win on this one because they acknowledge that (as the Muslims say) God is "ever merciful and compassionate".

3.There is "true Faith in Jesus" and there is using Jesus as a figurehead, but not actually having Faith in Jesus Christ (in other words, using the figurehead of Jesus to put a stamp of approval on greed, war-mongering, intolerance, idolatry, etc-- Fundy Faith). If one has TRUE Faith in Jesus then, by following His example and His teachings, this will manifest itself in one's relationships within family and community. God loves all of God's Children with TOTAL equality, and totally rejecting nationalism in favour of a concept of a "world-community" is most certainly in keeping with Jesus' teachings and injunctions. We fought nationalism and called it evil in World War 2, and now, largely through the efforts of people who identify as "conservative christians", nationalism has today somehow become acceptable and "patriotic". I doubt Ben Franklin, who identified himself as "An Internationalist" would find it very patriotic... and I have NO doubt that Jesus does not love the U.S.A more than any other nation or peoples. The Progressives win again.

4.Progressive Faith is built on the ACTUAL Rock, in Jesus Christ Himself and His instructions above all else. Fundamentalist faith is built on the shaky sands of a patchwork premillenial theology whose primary function has been to construct a fortress of justification around a dark core of greed, intolerance, nationalism, and idolatry. As I pointed out earlier, the slave-owners did the same thing in 19th Century America, the German "christians" who supported the Nazis did likewise, as did the supporters of continued segregation in the 1960s, and those who opposed interracial marriage...as well as the proponents of Manifest Destiny, The Holy Inquisition, the slave trade, racism, sexism, etc. Progressives champion the cause of the poor and the oppressed, and advocate TRULY "loving one's neighbor as oneself" not just on a national level, but on a worldwide one. What Would Jesus Do? Using The Gospels as an indicator, He'd likely give the Progressives a big thumbs up, and the Fundies a big thumbs down.

5.Unfortunately "interpreting as they see fit" is precisely what Fundies/Neocons do in spades. They cherry-pick from all over The Bible, and the parts they don't like, that they find "inconvenient" they simply ignore. As I said recently in another post, an Orthodox Jew I might disagree with absolutely on many issues, but I can respect him, because he is honest and observes the whole of his Faith. I have no respect whatsoever for the Fundy Faith in that it is dishonest at its very core, claiming biblical inerrancy on the one hand, but observing scripture only selectively with the other. The recent usury debate proved my point on that rather beautifully I think. Progressives don't try putting God in that box like the Fundies do, and are open to the boundless glory of God. They do not attempt to know the Mind of God, and in not doing so embrace a humility which the Fundies/Neocons can never hope to achieve, because their most basic doctrines reflect an esoteric, highly exclusive view of God. The Progressive path is definitely the wiser.

6.The Fundy Faith is indeed a Faith built on stony ground. It has yielded fruits of division and polarization. And by these fruits can we know them, truly. The Progressives are cultivating an orchard of inclusiveness which promotes the actual directives of Jesus Christ. Which Orchard Would Jesus Pick From? Read The Gospels.

7.Created in the Divine Image of God, our souls direct our primate minds to question, to seek answers. The Christian who closes his or her mind to the infinite possibilities, to the cultural,scientific, and even religious fields of debate and exploration, is denying the gift given to them by God. There is no contradiction between such endeavors and God, except in the minds of those who have accepted themselves on some level as no more than a talking monkey with car keys.

8.God does not want people coerced into loving Him. Jesus said, "If you LOVE me, obey my commandments". Of course, by that standard, it would appear a GREAT many Fundies/Neocons DON'T love Him. We are called to spread The Good News, and those sheep who are touched by it will follow The Good Shephard, not out of fear but out of love. And God decides who is "OK" and who isn't. Each of God's Children, created unique and loved equally, will be judged by God and God ALONE.

9.Agreed that through Jesus Christ all things are possible. But Jesus directs us HOW to change the world, HOW to take up our cross and follow Him in The Gospels. As James (the half-brother of Jesus?) said, "Faith without good works is like a body without a soul". Anyone who believes that proclaiming Jesus as Lord and yelling "washed in the blood", but then not following Jesus' actual injunctions, will achieve their salvation, needs to seriously reread The Gospels again. Jesus said that at their death there would be many pious "believers" who would see Him on the other side, and upon seeing Him would yell "Lord, lord!", and He said He would turn to them and say "I NEVER knew you".

10.Well, if one has no regard for all of the other life on this planet that are ALSO creations of Almighty God, I really don't know what to say to them. I suppose I might be tempted to offer them a banana and suggest they climb back into a nearby tree. To be so myopic as to be oblivious to the sanctity of God's WHOLE creation....well, as The Master might say, "They have eyes but do not see...they have ears but do not hear".......

Peace and Blessings.

Brother Damien

I had thought that Prescott's formulation was a bit too wishy washy, but when I see the results from Eddie, Gary, and co., I know that it is right on!

One thing about Buhddism: it does not necessarily deny the existence of God, but many strains of Buhddism allow for the existence of a whole pantheon of Gods.

Mr Damien,

I have some questions for you.

1) Would you please show me where in Scripture Jesus Christ commanded us to change the world?

2) Would you mind giving me some examples of the contradictions in Scripture you have found?

y2t

Damien,

What is the Gospel, according to "progressives"?

At an interfaith event, Bruce Prescott was describing the structure of authentic faith, what he calls "progressive faith." (As R. Arthur Waskow said at the event, I prefer the term "prophetic.") I don't think Bruce has ever "denied Christ." Doubtless, if he were speaking only to fellow Christians or in an evangelistic setting, he'd have given a definition that had more Christian content.

I find disturbing the idea that seeing ourselves from others' viewpoints is dismissed by Y2T as useless. Of COURSE we are to try for God's viewpoint, but God almost always uses humans to reveal God's perspective. In the parable of the "Good" or Compassionate Samaritan, Jesus tried to get his Jewish audience to see through the eyes of a hated other. Repeatedly, God told the Israelites to treat strangers well, remembering that they were strangers and NOT treated well in Egypt. Isn't that trying to see through the eyes of the other? How can that so easily be dismissed?

Gary, I'm not Damien, but I'll give this a shot--but I don't speak for all progressives, just me.

1)The bad news: The world is broken and estranged from God. This has resulted in groups oppressing each other and hurting the rest of God's creation. It also causes them to harm themselves in various forms of idolatry--worshipping anything but the living God. Along with Karl Barth and others (including Calvin, I had to agree with him on SOME things), I don't really believe in atheists. The human heart is an idol factory. We also make an idol out of our ideas about God, taming God to fit us. This gives us a spiritual slavery to match the horrors with inflict on each other.

2)The Good News: God has broken into human history in liberating and redeeming action. Most fully this has been done in Jesus Christ, the fullness of God's self-revealing. In Jesus, God's "kingdom" or Rule breaks the chains of inner and outer oppressions, begins to heal the wounded creation (as well as wounded hearts). Dividing lines of race, caste, class, sex, sexual orientation, etc. are broken down as a new humanity is forged. Sins are forgiven and we are empowered to live differently. By grace, God invites us into God's liberating and redeeming work in the world as we await the fullness of the Rule of God at the end of history. The bondage of personal sin is broken through faith in God through Jesus Christ. The bondages of oppression and the harms of the world are redeemed in history as God continues to bring in the Rule. God could do all that apart from us,but, by grace we are invited to participate in this healing of the world. Faith enables us not only to accept forgiveness, but to change our lives and follow Jesus--often in opposition to the current oppressive patterns of the fallen creation.

That's my attempt.

Mr Leveller,

I do not see the point you are making (should I be surprised?) and like Mr Tenoch you twist what I say to fit your futile worldly liberal reasoning.

The parable of the Good Samaritan is about loving your neighbour and anyone who accomodates and is inclusive towards other religions is not loving them as their neighbour, but rather, the opposite - you are despising and hating them.

If you are not telling them they are wasting their time with their silly religion you are denying them an opportunity of Salvation and all because of your liberal luvvy duvvy inclusive yuk or spue, which God is going to get out of His mouth very soon. You will be held responsible, if given the opportunity to witness for Christ to a heathen and let it slip for fear of offending.

Jesus Christ came to be an offence to the religious - a stumbling block to the Jews (The Religious) and foolishness to the Greeks (Intellectuals)

Do you know how to be an offence to the religious Mr Leveller? Somehow I doubt it.

y2t

Well, let's see. I usually manage to offend fundamentalists like you--and be offended by you in turn. Does that count?

The gospel is, indeed, a stumbling block. So, why do fundamentalists seem absolutely determined to put all kinds of OTHER stumbling blocks up IN ADDITION to the gospel? You accuse me of denying an opportunity of salvation to non-Christians because I won't be as rude as I possibly can and because I think I have things to learn from other faiths as well as hopefully things to teach? Yet, how many MILLIONS of people do you and folk like you DRIVE AWAY from Christ? Then you get all self-righteous about it and say, "Well the gospel is a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles." But the vast majority who encounter you never get a chance to stumble or find foolish the gospel, because they are too busy stumbling against all the %$#**&&! you place in front of the gospel and too busy finding foolish all the trappings you interweave with the gospel! You're just like the pharisees of Jesus' day, creating burdens for others that you won't lift yourselves.

And IF you are going to insult me, kindly do so without so many mispellings and bad grammar! You've got spellcheck, so pretend you actually passed 5th grade English.

Michael- you said it!

We deal with so many people at school who have been turned off to Teyose because of fundamentalism. The spiritual wounds last a lifetime- I should know.

The sad part is that the things the so-called preachers advocate is anti-education and anti-intelligence. They spout hatred and lies, and in doing so drive people away.

We end up dealing with the fallout. The preachers go home thinking that they've done God's will. They don't see the hell they create in people's lives- WRONGLY.

I think what Bruce has written will be exciting to a lot of people- and hopefully will help draw people to God.

Yes, Christ was indeed insulted by many of the religious people of his day, but he didn't return the insults the way Gary does.

You can talk the talk, but can you walk the walk?

Ah, Mr Leveller's now a little upset because personal insults are now flying and boasting too in your 'educational superiority.' Hmm. those first century Greeks insulted Paul too when they called him a babbler. All is vanity.

"Well, let's see. I usually manage to offend fundamentalists like you--and be offended by you in turn. Does that count?"

You cannot offend me, for I tell you The Truth and The Truth cannot be offended - it's impossible. I told you The Truth in my last post and that has offended you, so what does that tell us? Furthermore, I am not a fundamentalist please save your worldly labels for those who need them.

"The gospel is, indeed, a stumbling block. So, why do fundamentalists seem absolutely determined to put all kinds of OTHER stumbling blocks up IN ADDITION to the gospel?"

As I said, I am not a fundamentalist I am a Born Again Son of God and I have put no other stumbling blocks in your way nor in any other person's way. All I have done is revealed your wretched condition.

"You accuse me of denying an opportunity of salvation to non-Christians because I won't be as rude as I possibly can and because I think I have things to learn from other faiths as well as hopefully things to teach?"

I have not accused you of anything, your own behaviour and views on pagan religions accuse you, you condemn yourself and you need no 'help' from anyone else. Was Jesus Christ 'rude' when he told The Pharisees they were nests of vipers and whited sepulchres? Do you realise He was loving them when He said those things!!?? I am loving you when I tell you, you are worse than wretched.

If you think you have something to learn from other 'faiths' then what you are really saying is this: "The Word of God is insufficient for me and in turn Christ's sacrifice is not enough for me and I literally show my contempt for His sacrifice by searching elsewhere by 'learning' from other religions." Two Israelite kings - Saul and Solomon also thought like you and we all know where that led them.

"Yet, how many MILLIONS of people do you and folk like you DRIVE AWAY from Christ?"

How many do you draw? I spend my time on those who have gone astray, people like you Mr Leveller.

"Then you get all self-righteous about it and say, "Well the gospel is a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles."

I have told you The Truth and The Truth is righteous - period. It cannot be self-righteous again it's impossible. All you're doing is trying to turn your offended condition back onto me and that is also impossible. Finally on this point you have made the error of changing Greeks to gentiles. 'Greeks' here, is specifically aimed at the intellectuals of that day not gentiles in general for Salvation was to be offered to The Gentiles. The Lord knew that His Word would be rejected by The Jews and the Greeks (Intellectuals), but not by the gentiles. This is one of those 'little' NIV type errors that you 'progressive' people love.

"Well the gospel is a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles." But the vast majority who encounter you never get a chance to stumble or find foolish the gospel, because they are too busy stumbling against all the %$#**&&! you place in front of the gospel and too busy finding foolish all the trappings you interweave with the gospel! You're just like the Pharisees of Jesus' day, creating burdens for others that you won't lift yourselves."

The vast majority as you call them are not listening, so anything I say, or you for that matter, is irrelevant, but religious people do listen and in turn will either be persuaded or not persuaded. The problem here is that they will gather from you that their religion is fine and can even teach you something, whereas from me they will discover their religion is futile and that Salvation is through Jesus Christ and Him alone. The fact that they may reject what I say is also irrelevant for all this means is that they are not being called by The Father in this age.

y2t

In The Father's house there are many mansions. Suffice it to say that Michael and y2t will not be roommates. Then, again, if The Father has a sense of humor...

With a sense of humour like yours He would need one!!

Are you going to say anything or have I discovered another blind guide?

y2t

With a name like G Pope The Lord will definitely need a sense of humour!!!!!!!

y2t

Hi Brother Damien

Thanks so much for your 10 point essay. It was good to see such an articulate expression of what I think is the essence of Christ's teaching. I have one comment on point 2.

YOU WROTE:...In other words, there may certainly be "other paths" to God that are legitimate. What we do know is that the DIRECT path to God is through Jesus Christ, because Jesus IS God... people cannot be coerced to accept Christ...certainly people in other nations, who have grown up believing Christianity to be a false religion, are certainly not going to be "damned" by God for having the misfortune of not being raised in a Christian culture.

KEITH: I personally agree with the most conservative of Christians that Christ is the only way to God, but would suggest that there are many roads to *Christ*. I don't imagine that non-Christian religions are empty of God's truth, in fact I cannot say that the Christianity that was passed down to us is MORE right that non-christian religions. We might all be a little right and a little wrong, and for all I know Islam contains more correct claims about God than my faith does. But whatever errors my faith might have, I don't think Christ's Gospel, his teaching, his death and resurrection on the cross, the grace that saves us are among those errors--I believe those are the truth. Consequently, logically even, I must disagree with those who deny Christ's Gospel.

But that doesn't mean that the non-Christian religions don't contain God's inspiration, it doesn't even mean they might not contain more inspired things than mine does. And more importantly, it doesn't mean that those religions aren't better routes to Christ than the more direct route that some people take. I can't say *I* took the direct route since I was an atheist for years, but amazingly I think my *atheism* was an important part of the path that led me to Christ.

I need to make sure I am not misunderstood here. I am not saying that unless I see my Muslim friends flee from their Mosque and dive head first into a Baptismal font they have missed the boat. What I am saying is this: if Christ really is God as I believe then seeing him is EXACTLY seeing the Most Merciful, the creator and sustainer of the universe. Any sincere seeking Muslim (or Hindu, or Buddhist, or atheist, or even Christian) will embrace the Way, the Truth, the Life and will declare him Lord--seeking the Truth by definition entails embracing the Truth when you find it. If Christ IS that truth, the sincere seeker will embrace Christ even if that embrace happens between the last word any of us ever hear him say and the moment right before he dies. Even if it happens AFTER he's died.

Paul wrote in Romans 10:

"That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."

This doesn't say when that will happen, and it doesn't say that we Christians will know when it happened, to whom it did happen. Heck, we can't really tell if it's happened to Christians since we cannot read their minds. We cannot judge other people and their relationship with God, and we are fools when we imagine we can say who's saved and who's not.

So who's saved and who's not then? I guess that's God's business. But I would offer another quote from Paul's letter to the Romans:

"For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all." (Romans 11:32). So God has mercy on EVERYONE? Maybe we ought to show a little more mercy ourselves. It might be preety awkward in heaven bumping into someone we've trashed pretty thoroughly on earth:-)

your friend
Keith

Oops111

A point of clarification: I meant to suggest that different people might have different routes to Christ, that for a person born in a place where the loving people they encountered were Muslim and the Christians they knew were oppressive pricks, a Mosque might be a better entrance to Christ that a church. I'm not a one-size-fits-all kind of guy. For me, Islam wasn't a live option, my only way to Christ was through the church, or more precisely through the Quaker Meeting.

your friend
Keith

I've got to tell you, Keith... this site is getting more and more interesting!!!

We've got an Anabaptist (Leveller?- hope I have that right Michael), a mainstream Baptist, Church of Christ, Br. Damien (sorry, brother, but I forget what your branch is called), a Quaker, a couple of Roman Catholics, and who knows what else (not to mention myself- a Mvskoke Square Ground person).

I like it!!! I like it!!!!

Actually, denominationally speaking, Bob, I'm a Baptist (Alliance of Baptists--the most progressive of Baptist groups in U.S.) who draws more from the Anabaptist than the Puritan or Revivalist roots of our faith. If Bruce Prescott is "Mainstream Baptist" referring not to where the majority of Baptists are today, but the mainstream of the TRADITION in the U.S. (& I think he really is), then I represent its leftwing Social Gospel/Liberation Theology/Anabaptist-Pacifist wing. We recognize each other as spiritual kin, but more as cousins than immediate family members.

The Levellers weren't a denomination, but a religiously-inspired political movement for democracy, equality, justice for the poor, during the English Civil War. They included Baptists, Quakers, Seekers, Many Congregationalists/Independents, and some Presbyterians. (Methodists didn't yet exist.) Their great leader was my hero, Richard Overton, an English General Baptist who had previously been part of a Dutch Mennonite congregation (Mennonites are direct descendants of the Anabaptists).

I seek to re-capture the Leveller spirit (hence I use the older spelling instead of leveler) and translate that into a contemporary U.S. setting.

This site is more diverse than you mention, Bob, since Tim Simpson & Gwin Pratt are Presbyterian and Faithful Progressive goes to a congregation that is a union of Evangelical Lutheran Church of America and United Church of Christ (not to be confused with the conservative Churches of Christ or their liberal cousins the Disciples of Christ). Now, what's a Myskoke Square Ground person? Does that refer to your Native American indigenous spirituality or some adaptation of same to Christianity?

Taking Bob and Michael's cue, so far, 14 different people have weighed in on Dr. Prescott's magnificent outline, including me (saving the best for last, naturally)

We are, in order of appearance, Michael the Leveller, Billy Strain, Bob Bowers, Frank Frey, yes2truth, Eddie Hughes, Arden C. Hander, Gary, Tenoch, Brother Damien, john g, Gpope, keith johnson, and me, Lex.

Some of the above have identified their own denominational affiliations, or been so identified, others have not. Some have switched from one "branch" to another. Others were no doubt "born" that way, in a manner of speaking. At least one prefers not to be identified in any way, shape or form with organized "religion" (preferring disorganized religion instead? JUST KIDDING!!!)

Reading through the posts has also given a good flavoring of our diversity of opinion, which may or may not be a perfect reflection of what our denominational affiliations themselves would want to be known for OFFICIALLY, but you'll have that. It's what makes this crazy quilt so very interesting, and it all comes out in the wash. That, anyway, is our sincere hope and prayer.

"Love God with your whole heart, soul, mind, and strength, and your neighbor as yourself," Jesus said in reply to the guy who was looking for a loophole, and my, how we do look for loopholes!

I'm reminded as well that when Jesus contended with the devil (adversary) in the desert, the devil proved to be quite knowledgeable of Scripture. The devil is the original master of the loophole mentality -"Did God REALLY say?"- but the thing to keep in mind is that the devil also got booted out of heaven. The devil could feel the love, but had no intention of returning it. Bad move there, and the same here.

No adaptation, according to the elders (and there is evidence that this is very old)...

Our traditions are that Teyose (our name for Jesus) taught us what became the Way of the Square Ground long ago. It is a pre-Columbian form of Christianity.

We're more concerned as well with how people are, and not what they claim. The idea of forcing one's beliefs upon another is almost unthinkable to us- and if we hadn't experienced it, I think it WOULD be unthinkable.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is more than words to us!!!

Under Dr. Prescott's characteristic #8, he writes that progressive faith "extends itself both by random acts of kindness and by deliberate acts of compassion and mercy." I agree wholeheartedly.

On the other hand, this slogan that I've seen on a bumper sticker has me scratching my head. You may have seen it as well:

"Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty."

Im not a gnostic. I can't decipher the riddle.

This is gross error:

"Under Dr. Prescott's characteristic #8, he writes that progressive faith "extends itself both by random acts of kindness and by deliberate acts of compassion and mercy."

What he is describing here are the fruits of the Spirit, not faith. Kindness and love etc. are fruits of the Spirit.

Faith is: 1) belief and continued belief through trials or continued belief come what may when the going gets tough. And: 2) Risky living or taking leaps of faith which will involve trusting God in difficult and testing situations that you could find yourself in. eg starting your own business. That is faith, and it's got nothing to do with helping old ladies cross the road.

y2t

Note to self:

Starting a business, skydiving, shooting craps -- acts of faith.

Giving of yourself without any assurance or thought of a return and doing so simply because you believe that it is what Jesus would have you do -- not faith.

y2t,

I have faith that you will read this. That faith of mine is the fruit of experience, which also persuades me -as the fruit of my experiential faith- that having read this, you will form some response in your mind and actually type it out and post it, but then, to spite me perhaps? you won't, in which case my faith will have been misplaced, but I believe better things about you!

Call it random kindness on my part, and a deliberate act of compassion, responding to you like this. You see, I could be eating the fruit of an apple tree right now instead of taking the time to type this, but I have faith that this exchange with you will be fruitful.

Incidentally, I have faith that the apple doesn't have a worm in it, that is, I haven't examined it for worm holes, but will my faith bear the fruit that I hope it will, and be confirmed by not finding half a worm in my apple? THAT is the question.

The thing is, y2t, both faith and the fruit of faith are expressions of the Spirit at work in you. They inform and build on each other. There is no radical divide into categories with absolutely no overlap like you appear to favor.

Now, there is a difference between having faith IN Christ, and having the faith OF Christ. Perhaps this is what you mean?

It's a Red Delicious by the way.

"What good is it my brothers [and sisters], if you say you have faith but do not have works? Can faith save you? If a brother [or sister] is naked and lacks daily food, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace; keep warm and eat your fill," and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that? So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.
"But someone will say, 'You have faith and I have works.' Show me your faith apart from works and I by my works will show you my faith. You believe that there is one God; you do well. Even the demons believe--and tremble. Do you want to be shown, you senseless person, that faith apart from works is barren? Was not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac [personal note: eww!]on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was brought to completion by the works. Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, 'Abraham believed God and was reckoned to him as righteousness,' and he was called the friend of God.
"You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. Likewise, was not Rahab the whore also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by another road? For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is also dead." James, the brother of Jesus,2:14-26.

So, what Bruce Prescott is calling progressive faith is what James calls faith that produces works or is demonstrated through works. Earlier in James, this is called doing the Word rather than hearing it only. By contrast, the view that sees faith as only belief and risky trust(and works as optional fruit of the Spirit), is called by St. James by some very unflattering names: dead faith (twice), demonic faith, barren faith. I think I prefer the living faith, productive faith, and non-demonic faith-- in Bruce's words "progressive faith," or, as I prefer, "prophetic faith."

We must be like Mary and Martha combined, both contemplative and active. Ora et labora, or pray and work, is the Benedictine motto.

Faith bears fruit. Cutting the connection between the two kills them both. It's as simple as that.

So, Michael and Lex, does this mean that I won't necessarily be a shoe-in for Heaven if I take up skydiving?

Gpope, it may very well depend on who you ask for help when the parachute doesn't open.

Parachute doesn't open...

(SNICKER!)

Or, maybe a loud, long OOOOOOOHHHHH SH*******!

Sorry for the off color remark.... but I couldn't resist the temptation!!!

...

Now to get more serious...

In my opinion- faith is the essence of the relationship we have with Christ. It is vital, effective, and transforming.

You can't have faith and sit on the sidelines (except to rest now and then).

To Lex and co,

Having refreshed my memory with a little study I of course remembered that faith is a fruit of the Spirit - period. That said, faith frequently does not include good works as in James 2. James uses the word 'works' on its own without 'good' and the Greek for 'works' is:

"From ἔργω ergō (a primary but obsolete word; to work); toil (as an effort or occupation); by implication an act: - deed, doing, labour, work."

Mr Pope please take note: effort or occupation or starting ones own business as a believer, it all takes faith. Worldly businessmen trust in themselves, I as a business man trust in God.

Abraham's example was an act of faith but there were no good works involved. His act of Faith was highly risky, even highly dangerous for his son Isaac and distressful in the extreme for Abraham. There was no loving of neighbour in this act of faith.

Peter, walking on the water involved immense faith but again, no good works just works.

Faith the size of a mustard seed can move mountains, again just works.

The example of works in James is set against the back drop of my favourite topic - Religion. These men whom James was confronting were religious men. These men liked to be religious, men who, like the Pharisees, had all the outward show of being good but obviously lacked the substance, and therefore needed telling that if their religious appearance was to have any meaning they had better make sure it was backed up with pure religion - good works. This passage is not a send up for religion but rather a put down, for pure religion isn't religion.

As for sky diving, why not? If I was to do it it would require great faith as I can't stand great heights. I would not leave off the parachute though as that would be tempting God.

As True Believers, all risky living involves faith in action - Works!!

y2t

Whenever I hear or read discussions of faith v. works, this passage from John 6 comes to mind:

28 Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?" 29 Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."

Hmm. Faith IS a work. That settles it?

y2t wrote, "I would not leave off the parachute though as that would be tempting God."

Unless you had the gift of levitation and were soaring in rapturous ecstasy.

You'd like reading about Christian saints who possessed this gift, here: http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/viewcolumn.php?id=38

Neo didn't have anything on these folks.

Faith is a free gift Eph 2:8 along with Grace. We do nothing to prove our faith until we do works.

We are given faith - The Lord's Faith so that we can believe and cannot boast in any part of our Salvation.

For our faith to be real there must be works but our works have no part in our Salvation. Our works store us treasures or rewards in Heaven.

The work of God is just that - His work and His work is the enabling of our belief, so we cannot boast.

As for levitation, I have no comment.

y2t

y2t, years ago I met a minister of a denomination that teaches dispensationalism. He believed that speaking in tongues today is of the devil. It could not possibly be a gift of the Holy Spirit as it was 2000 years ago. What do you think?

I have only one view on The Gifts of The Spirit and that is summed up in one sentence:-

If the Gifts are of no benefit to the brethren then they are next to useless.

I have been in congregations in the past where dozens of people have been babbling away, even barking like dogs, but no one was interpreting a word of it - useless, and in some cases highly suspect.

What is dispensationalism? I know I don't need it, just curious.

y2t

y2t, if I understand the gift of tongues correctly, it has two applications, one as a way of addressing the congregation, in which case there will be an interpretation, the other as an aid to prayer, when we don't know how to pray as we ought and need assistance.

I read an example of the latter in a book by Rev. Michael Scanlan and James Manney, "Let the Fire Fall," Franciscan University Press (March 1998)

It was at a prayer meeting where after the sermon, lines formed of people wanting to be prayed for. Rev. Scanlan, a Catholic priest and one of many such Catholics who'd been involved with the charismatic renewal, was one of those praying over people.

One guy in Fr. Michael's line had a hearing problem. One eardrum was missing entirely. The other was damaged severely. He could barely hear at all, but the guy's problem was deeper than physical. He was a complete skeptic about healing on the one hand, and on the other was convinced that there was no way on earth that a Catholic priest could even be a Christian, much less one who possessed the gift of healing.

The guy related his hearing problem to Fr. Michael, but nothing else, expecting only to be confirmed in his skepticism. This is where the gift of tongues came in. Fr. Michael used this gift as he stuck his fingers into the guy's ears, knowing in the Spirit that there was much more going on with this guy than an ear problem. What happened next he described as "heat" in his hands, and wouldn't you know it? The man's eardrums were completely healed, and the deeper healing, the most important healing, also occurred. The man right then and there confessed his skepticism and bad attitude and asked for pardon.

Fr. Michael and the man hugged each other in love and acceptance as Christians ought, and it was the gifts of tongues and healing, operative in our time, that made it happen.

Dispensationalism teaches, at least in some denominational branches, that what I've just described to you is a work of darkness, a deceit of hell, because God only dispensed such gifts to get the Apostolic Church going, even though there is NO mention in the NT that these gifts were time limited.

There is much more to Dispensationalism than this, of course. It informs much of evangelical Protestantism today. Here's a good place to start reading about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalism

Dispensationalism, which I consider a major heresy that has infected much of conservative Protestantism, is the belief that God has divided time into many (7?) different "dispensations" in which "the rules" for how one relates to God are fundamentally different. Before the Fall (understood as a datable event in history!) was the Dispensation of Innocence; then the Dispensation of Promise (to Abraham); then of Law; then of Grace, etc. Dispensationalism gets Christians out of obeying the Sermon on the Mount by claiming that Jesus never intended it for the Church Age/Age of Grace, but only for the Kindom Age in the future. As Lex points out, they also claim that the gift of tongues (and healing, etc.) was ONLY for the brief period of the apostolic era and that any healing or miracles or tongues today are counterfeit products of demons.
Weirdly, despite this absolute antagonism of Dispensationalists to pentecostal/charismatic gifts, Pentecostals have usually been (modified) Dispensationalists--especially in how they treat prophecy. Dispensationalists believe they can read prophecy, especially the Apocalyptic books of Daniel and Revelation (NOTE: There is no "s" on the last book of the Bible. It is not the epistle to the Revelations! It is the Revelation (singular) to John.), in such a way as to predict when Jesus will return--not the day or hour, but maybe within the month! Dispensationalists believe the world MUST get worse before the Lord returns, therefore they are against work of social justice, environmentalism, and peacemaking (at best useless and at worst a delay of the 2nd Coming).
Because of the role they believe Israel plays in prophecy, Dispensationalists are also usually Christian Zionists who unconditionally back every move Israel makes. They can't WAIT to see bloodshed in the Middle East because it might be the battle of Armaggedon and usher in the 2nd Coming. So, they actually disobey Jesus command to be peacemakers and work for wars in the Middle East, especially wars that expand the nation of Israel against others.
Dispensationalism started in the late 19th C. in Scotland with the Plymouth Brethren (although not all the Plymouth Brethren have remained Dispensationalists) and moved throughout Britain and North America through "prophecy conferences." It was popularized in the U.S. through the Scofield Reference Bible and Dallas Theological Seminary, and, in popular form through the writings of one of the best known graduates of Dallas Seminary, Hal Lindsey. The Ryrie Study Bible is also Dispensationalist. Perhaps the current most (in)famous Dispensationalist and Christian Zionist is the TV preacher John Hagee (who just took 1300 church people to Washington to lobby AGAINST a ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon and is now organizing "pro-Israel" rallies that could care less about the suffering Christians in Lebanon), but Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, D. James Kennedy, and other big-name fundamentalist preachers are also Dispensationalists.
Very Weirdly, a new hybrid has made common cause with Dominion Theology, also known as Reconstructionism. Initially, these two rightwing movements didn't like each other because, in pure form, Dominionists are post-millenial whereas Dispensationalists are pre-millenial. But the hybrid takes the Dominionist concept that Christians should rule everything (have dominion over it) and combines it with the Dispensationalist belief in the imminent pre-millenial 2nd Coming. (There are also a saner class of premillenialists who are not Dispensationalist. I am an amillenialist, believing that the "millennium" mentioned in Revelation is just a code for the time prior to Christ's return, no matter how long.) Classic Dispensationalism was pretty a-political, but the new version has taken on the Dominionist slogan of "occupy till I come," and conceived of the world as a war between Christians and everyone else and believes that Christians are to run everything and give no equality or tolerance for non-Christian faiths. The idea that Christians are to be servants, not rulers, has apparently escaped them.

That's more than I wish I knew, except that these folk have ENORMOUS political clout in today's America, so you HAVE to know who they are and their weird beliefs.

Michael, thanks! I was just touching the tip of the polluted iceberg. God help us all!

I actually have a Ryrie Study Bible, a Moody Press publication. The footnotes are strange, to say the least.

"It is not the epistle to the Revelations!" :)

All of a sudden, I'm reminded of something my former Baptist minister and now Orthodox catachumen former work partner told me one day. (whew!)

Rev. 6:20 "Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over these, the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and will reign with him one thousand years."

The first resurrection is Christian baptism. Think and pray on this please.

Oops! It's Rev. 20:6

Four questions for Mr Leveller.

When Jesus Christ walked this this earth, was He under The Law or not?

Did he reveal The Truth to the masses or hide it?

Where in Scripture does The Lord Jesus Christ command us to change the world?

Who is the god of this world?

y2t

To Lex

You can pray for The Lord's speedy return but that is all.

Our Baptism and Birthing in Christ is only phase one of the First Resurrection. The First Resurrection in its fullness does not occur until Jesus Christ returns when we will be raised as Spirit Beings. Those who died in Christ first and then those still alive second and in the twinkling of an eye.

y2t

y2t wrote, "You can pray for The Lord's speedy return but that is all."

Only you can prevent forest fires.

Spirit beings? Did you just deny the resurrection of the Body, Y2t? Are you espousing Gnosticism?

As for your questions to me:

1)If Dispensationalists ONLY had a Law/Gospel dichotomy, they would just be Lutherans. Yes, Jesus was "under" the Law, but Christians have greatly misunderstood Torah (better translated "teaching" than "Law" although there are legal dimensions) as a burden to contrast with the freedom of grace. For most Jews, then and now, Torah itself was conceived as grace, as a freeing gift of God. Jesus seems to have shared this view, but to have resisted the Pharisees (an actual Jewish sect and not just a symbol for "religious people" as you maintain) program of expanding the Levitical codes to cover everyone and not just the priests and Levites. It was that mindset that Paul (the former Pharisee turned Christian missionary theologian) also seems to address in his Law vs. Gospel dichotomy.

2)Jesus revealed truth, why? What does that have to do with anything under discussion?

3) Jesus doesn't command us to change the world. He commands disciples to live the values of the Rule of God, and this DOES change the world.

4)O, gee, I don't know, could it be . . . SATAN?!
(Sorry, Church Lady flashback.) I think you are confusing 2 meanings of the term "world." The Greek Kosmos, like the English term "world" can mean "this planet," or "the created world," as it does in John 3:16. Satan isn't god of that, nor are humans though both think they are. The earth is still the Lord's and we only (bad) stewards. But the term "world" can mean "the social order organized in rebellion against God," or what Walter Wink calls the Domination System. THAT is the meaning where Satan is called the "god of this world."
In the second meaning, the term "world" is negative and Christians are to be against it. By confusing the two DIFFERENT meanings, far too many Christians think they are to be against the earth, against creation--thus their indifference to or hatred of movements for justice, peace, and the presevation of creation.

In general, I dislike accusatory rhetorical questions. This is not some heresy trial and you are not my judge. I started this posting with the "aha! I've got you" remark about you denying bodily resurrection (when surely you just phrased things poorly) to show you how the shoe felt on the other foot.

We weren't in any kind of debate. You had said you didn't know what Dispensationalism was, so I supplied information--and my disapproval. That is all.

"far too many Christians think they are to be against the earth, against creation--thus their indifference to or hatred of movements for justice, peace, and the presevation of creation."

Right now I'm picturing some guy holding a dirt clod in his hand and saying to it, "I hate you!" The dirt clod replies, "Why? I'm what you are made of. Can't we be friends?" The guy thinks for a moment, then says, "Nah, I'm holding you in MY hand and I mean to destroy you because I can." So he flings the dirt clod into the creek, but before it vanishes beneath the surface, the dirt clod wails, "I'm gonna tell God on you!"

To Lex,

Forest fires are an integral part of creation just as tsunamis, earthquakes and volcanoes.

These are also events The Lord prophesied would take place in the end times. Are you saying I should pray against what He said would happen?

y2t

To Mr Leveller,

"Spirit beings? Did you just deny the resurrection of the Body, Y2t? Are you espousing Gnosticism?"

I have not denied anything, for there is no resurrection of the body for those Born Again, so there is nothing to deny. The only physical resurrection is the second resurrection in Revelation 20. Where all those that were not in the First Resurrection will get their chance to obtain Salvation.

Dispensationalism sounds to me like some kind of acknowledgement that God changed His plan for mankind at different times in order to bring about His desired aims. Which were always going to happen, because Our God is a Mighty God and He does things for His Glory, like predestining some people and hardening the hearts of others.

From your previous post:

"Dispensationalism gets Christians out of obeying the Sermon on the Mount by claiming that Jesus never intended it for the Church Age/Age of Grace, but only for the Kindom Age in the future."

Sounds about right to me. Can you show me where we are supposed to obey anything under the New Covenant? The Lord said "He who loves another has fulfilled The Law." If we have fulfilled The Law then we are perfect and if perfect why would we need to obey anything. Perfection is perfection is it not? Furthermore if Jesus Christ is our Brother and our friend, who ever heard of anyone being ordered around by a friend or a brother or having to obey them? Something is not quite right with what you are saying Mr Leveller. You're not one of these salvation by works types are you?

"Dispensationalists believe the world MUST get worse before the Lord returns, therefore they are against work of social justice, environmentalism, and peacemaking (at best useless and at worst a delay of the 2nd Coming)."

Again it all sounds OK to me. Lets look at it this way. Now here they are, all these 'Christians' in their demon-inations (divisions), millions of them, all praying for peace, for an end to poverty, for an end to forest fires, for an end to hunger, for social justice, you name it, if it's of the world they pray for it. The question is what are the end results of all this praying? Is God listening? Is He stopping the suffering, the increasing violence on our streets, the wars, abortion, child abuse, sexual perversion, famine, aids, cancer, STD's, drugs and drunkeness? I could go on and on. All these evils are on the increase not decreasing. Have we got a powerless God who is not the least bit interested in what is going on? No a thousand times No, but He is not answering misguided silly prayer either.

Why? Well He told us why because we are not of this world, if Born Again. We're in it but we're not of it. What does this mean? It means we're like foreigners or aliens in another country. If I went to live in France I would always be a foreigner - not allowed to vote or do many of the things that the natives do unless of course I became a citizen and this is what Christians do. They give up their Holy nationality and become citizens of The World, if they ever leave it in the first place that is.

What are we supposed to do then? Witness and pray but pray always that the Kingdom will come and soon for that is the only way all the suffering is going to end. 'Christians' have been praying for nearly two thousand years for this world to improve but all it's done is got worse.

For a final point, it was The Lord who said "the poor will always be with you" and yet I see silly people with end poverty now stickers. It ain't gonna happen in this age and that's The Truth folks.

I will leave you with these Scriptures to think and pray about:

1 Thess 5:3 But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you. 2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. 3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.

Matt 10:34 "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household."

y2t

To y2t,

You wrote, "Forest fires are an integral part of creation just as tsunamis, earthquakes and volcanoes.

These are also events The Lord prophesied would take place in the end times. Are you saying I should pray against what He said would happen?"

Hell no, sir. I wrote that only you can prevent forest fires. That was Smokey Bear's witness. Some might even call it prophetic.

Tell ya what, if YOU would like to devote the rest of your pre-rapture time on earth praying for tsunamis, earthquakes, and volcanoes (erupting, I assume) to happen so as to FULFILL what our Lord prophesied, and thereby hastening his return, then by all means, do so! I have other things to do, unfortunately, like feeding the fish and taking out the trash, stuff like that, oh, and working a job 9 to 5.

As for forest fires, they aren't specifically mentioned by "The Lord," so you'll have to consult with the prophecy scholars to find out if they, too, are part of the "package" of natural disasters that we should all hope and pray for in these, our very own "end times."

I will ignore your silly sarcastic remarks and advise you that I do not pray FOR tsunamis, earthquakes and volcanoes or forest fires but do acknowledge that all these things MUST come to pass and that your ineffectual prayer will do nothing to stop them. These things are caused by man's sin and will increase in frequency and volatility with the increase in man's sin which gives no sign of abating.

Mainstream Christainty's problem is that they live in an artificial psuedo Christian world that is totally contaminated by the cares of this world. Which in turn has produced political, liberal reforming, do-gooding passing itself off as Christianity. Do not be deceived.

Romans 8:22 "For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. 23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body."

The creation is groaning along with ourselves in our wretched physical human condition awaiting the adoption i.e. the redemption of our physical bodies to spiritual bodies at Christ's return. Once The Lord has returned The Creation will be properly cared for and tended, but not until.

Proof of this is the continued annihilation of the rain forests which no man seems willing to stop nor will they for trees get special mention in Revelation 8:7 "The first angel sounded, and there followed hail and fire mingled with blood, and they were cast upon the earth: and the third part of trees was burnt up, and all green grass was burnt up."

The future is not looking to good for the Green Parties of this world is it Lex. Now as a Christian are you going to continue in what looks to me like some kind of allegiance with these silly tree huggers who worship the creation instead of The Creator, or become the Christian witness you are supposed to be?

y2t

"your ineffectual prayer will do nothing to stop them"

This is presumption, and so is this,

"Now as a Christian are you going to continue in what looks to me like some kind of allegiance with these silly tree huggers who worship the creation instead of The Creator, or become the Christian witness you are supposed to be?"

I'm a committed Roman Catholic, and believe that the papacy is the continuation, through the laying on of hands, of Peter's assigned role as guardian of the keys of heaven. This power of binding and loosing was given to him by Jesus, and through him, to his heirs in this office. Furthermore, the exercise of this God-given authority to teach and to bind depends not on worthiness of the one sitting in Peter's chair -recalling that Peter needed to be rebuked by Paul for showing favoritism- but on Jesus Himself who conferred this authority for the sake of the entire Church. Jesus speaks in and through the person of the Pope, like it or not.

THE argument that has shattered Christendom into God knows how many denominations has been over authority. Whose interpretation of Scripture is definitive? Who may rightly teach in the name of Jesus Christ? I stand with Rome, in keeping with the order that Jesus Himself established. You don't.

Jesus prayed for unity in the Church. Unity does not exist at present because, as I see it, pride has repeatedly trumped humility, and has done so since the Church's inception. That you are not in communion with Rome on matters of faith and morals is a fruit of pride that has led to rebellion, and rebellion, as you well know, is as the sin of witchcraft. You are an heir to this wretched and hell inspired "tradition."

Why then don't YOU become the Christian witness you are supposed to be? Repent of the errors of your denominational founders and join the rest of your brothers and sisters who haven't wandered off like sheep without a shepherd to graze on weeds outside of the pasture?

Thank you, y2t. This is the first time since I've been coming here that I've taken an opportunity to explain my stance as a Christian witness, and I owe it to you.

Begging your pardon, y2t. I presumed that you aren't a Roman Catholic. Are you?

"I'm a committed Roman Catholic, and believe that the papacy is the continuation, through the laying on of hands, of Peter's assigned role as guardian of the keys of heaven."

The above means that you are not a Christian but a servant of the Whore of Babylon and therefore anything you say to me from now on will have less value than an empty baked bean can. So you can spend your time "feeding the fish and taking out the trash, stuff like that, oh, and working a job 9 to 5." At least when you stand before God you can tell Him you did something useful, for your religion is nothing but an evil blasphemy.

Butchered any Protestants or Arabs lately have we or perhaps persecuted a few Jews? What a loving group of individuals they are!! By their 'fruits' you shall know them!

The only person the pope speaks for is The Devil.

y2t

"The only person the pope speaks for is The Devil."

Allow me to suggest that you write the pope a letter, or better, pay a personal visit, to let him know that that he speaks for "The Devil." You do want him to be saved, don't you?

Brother Lex,

First of all let me say that even as a lapsed Catholic I am appalled at the level of ignorant hatefulness that y2t keeps demonstrating. I am honored to be in your company Lex as you have shown remarkable restraint in responding to what has to be some of the most savage and un-Christian behaviour yet exhibited on this site.
BTW, I looked at y2t's e-mail addy. He or she is posting from the UK. British anti-Catholicism is apparently just as virulent as British anti-semitism. Just consider the source.

Hi Frank! I'd been wondering who was following this thread. I also wondered where y2t was posting from. Pity the poor British! They have an especially nasty and bloody history viz a' viz Rome, a.k.a., "The Italian Mission."

I am in no way an apologist for the God awful messes that Rome has created by trying to be both a Church and an empire. Perhaps it was inevitable that Christianity would rise to the top of the paganism around it and assume real political power. This power has not been wielded wisely. It has rather been a great grief, a nightmare for many!

At the same time, the question of legitimate pastoral authority remains answered, as I see it, in the institution of the papacy, in the person of Peter and his heirs in this office.

The Reformers had many legitimate complaints, which in due course were corrected, but I've wondered why, for love of the Church, these people could not have "offered this up," (that's a Catholic expression) as their way of sharing in the Passion, something that Paul affirmed! They would not or could not. They had to make their stands, hence the fragmentation of Christendom into competing factions. We are all the losers for it.

This is why I keyed on pride trumping humility, hurtful as it may be to some to even suggest it, as the reason why we have, what is it, 50,000 different Baptist denominations? Please understand, I'm not picking on Baptists, just using them as an example! Some of my best friends are Baptists!

I'd imagine that many Baptists would consider me a Christian in spite of my Catholicism. I can deal with that, provided the doors of communication remain open and we can discuss in mutual respect the points of doctrine that divide us. y2t represents a strain of thought that I've encountered in my home state of WV, where it is IMPOSSIBLE to be both Christian and Catholic. Real dialogue is more "challenging," to put it mildly, but we all ask God's blessings, and quite frequently those blessings are given to us in ways that we never even imagined.

"Allow me to suggest that you write the pope a letter, or better, pay a personal visit, to let him know that that he speaks for "The Devil." You do want him to be saved, don't you?"

What gives you the idea that I am responsible for anyone else's Salvation. That's The Father's job not mine: John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Don't worry he'll be saved alright but only after he's stood in front of God and given an account of himself. Rather him than me!!

I tell you what, I have a better idea, now that the current anti-Christ is in office, he created a vacancy. He was previously head of The Inquisition. I reckon either you or that pious friend of yours, Damien, should apply, that's if old Mel Gibson doesn't beat you to the post first - all that anti-jewish hatred will be very well received - don't you think? As a rider Old Bene boy was a member of Hitler youth when he was young and then rose to head of the Inquisition. Wow! what a track record!

Another thing is this, any idea why they need the institution of The Inquisition in the 21st century? I'll tell you, because they are still the same murdering illegitimates they always were. Leopards never change their spots - ever.

I'm hateful!!? Oh I get it, on this platform we all live in denial about The Whore's crimes and abominations and accuse a man of The Truth as being hateful. I'll tell you this, I'm no more hateful than Jesus Christ when he called the religious men of his day vipers, whited sepulchres, and sons of the Devil. If I am offending you, then I'm spot on target - a bulls-eye no less and I'm doing my job - preaching and teaching The Truth.

y2t

Time will tell, kind sir, whether or not you have even gotten close to the truth. In the meantime, I would ask your prayers for all members of the Roman Catholic CHurch, that they would come to know, love, and serve Jesus Christ as they ought. Would you do that for all of us, please?

Time has got nothing to do with it. Either you are of The Truth or you're not and you cannot serve two masters.

I have only one master - The Father in Heaven and Jesus Christ is my brother.

You have a man in Rome who is an imposter and all Roman Catholics believe he is Christ's representative. This in itself is unbiblical and please don't give me Peter the pope nonsense.

Scripture is clear about your deceived condition.

The Lord said through Paul 2 Thess 2:7 "For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. 8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: 9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, 10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:"

Paul says the "mystery of iniquity" a direct referrence to the Babylonian Mystery Religion. Then he says: "doth already work" So the illegitimates were already causing Paul hassle and agro in the first century. Paul then moves to the future and descibes how The Lord will send them a strong delusion that they should believe a lie.

Now these people are not the lost for the lost don't believe anything, nor do they care. No, these people believe and they believe a lie and they are deluded, and they don't want to be saved. Never-the-less they must have the message given to them, so that when they stand before God they will be without excuse. All is for God's glory and they will get their chance but it will be more tough for them than for non-believers. Non-believers haven't anything to unlearn.

y2t

y2t, help me out here, please. In my "empty baked bean can" way, I'm a bit perplexed by things that you've written.

"Don't worry he'll be saved alright..

that is, the pope and "current anti-Christ," a.k.a, "Old Bene boy,' "an imposter," former "head of the Inquisition," chief "servant of the Whore of Babylon," and counted among those who "don't want to be saved,"

...but only after he's stood in front of God and given an account of himself."

I have never before read such an endorsement of the mercy of God in my life, y2t! All Benedict, needs to do is say "Yes, God, I did and was all of these awful things!" and God will say, "That's all I needed to hear. Enter into my joy!"

Is that what you mean, y2t? I knew that God is generous in mercy, but you have knocked my socks clean off!

y2t, you've got me to thinking that maybe even Lucifer has a shot at getting right with God, but I suppose that we won't know about that till we get there.

"y2t, you've got me to thinking that maybe even Lucifer has a shot at getting right with God, but I suppose that we won't know about that till we get there."

You said it, and we do know before we get there!!

Jesus Christ came to overcome sin and death and death can never be a permanent feature. If any being was to die permanently then God will have failed. For He is not willing for any man to perish and I would ask you to focus on the words 'not willing.' If God is not willing then as far as I can see, no man is going to perish. We are talking about God's will here, not my will or your will.

The Father God is love, mercy and forgiveness - period. He knows no other way. These fruits eminate or pour from Him continually and His wrath is ALWAYS short lived. It is only men of religion - The Christian religion that have conjoured up this false ogre god image and like most everything else they say, it's all fabrication and lies.

Here is a verse to think on. Hebrews 2:14 "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might DESTROY him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;"

This word destroy here is sheer translators prejudiced choice for it does not mean destroy at all, it means to render powerless or to make idle, and in this case it means turning the Devil into a nothing - a nobody, probably with less power than a human baby. Now imagine how humbling that will be for him and what a punishment!!! After chucking his weight around for thousands of years, now rendered useless and under us - we will have authority over him.

Now how easy is it for Our Creator God to make the Devil powerless and/or render him idle and impotent. How about just a click of His fingers or a blink of His eye!!!

yt2

Interesting take on things. Allow this "empty baked bean can" to comment, if I may.

"If God is not willing then as far as I can see, no man is going to perish."

I understand this to mean that God gives sufficient grace to all that they might be saved. Our very existence is a grace, but more than that, this grace draws us to acknowledge our creator, and this is key; it means that we may also freely reject this grace, scorn the commands of God, and perish of our own accord. God is not willing, but the burden is on us to choose life. We are free to do so or not. That is the beauty as well as the horror of being free moral agents, unless you deny the existence of free will. If love is not free, it isn't love at all, but coercion.

"The Father God is love, mercy and forgiveness - period."

The Father God's love is also just. Sin must have its punishment. If not, then the death of Jesus on the cross was meaningless, and John the Baptist was wrong to refer to Jesus as "the lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world." John 1:29 Again, "without the shedding of blood, there is no remission" Heb. 9:22, and Jesus is "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." Rev. 13:8

"His wrath is ALWAYS short lived."

Scripture does not support this assertion, either with regard to men or to the angels who fell. Jesus spoke of the rich man in the torments of hell. A great abyss separated him from Abraham. The man surely wanted to cross over, but could not. All that he could do was ask for help for his surviving kin.

Jesus warned of "weeping and the gnashing of teeth," of an unquenchable fire, and an outer darkness. Describing how He would act as King at His coming one day, He pictures Himself seated on His throne and saying to those who never knew Him, "Depart from me, ye cursed, into the everlasting fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels."

What He doesn't say is, "Bear your curse, men and angels, in the everlasting fire for a while and then I'll review your cases. If you show improvement, then I'll lift the curse."

"Now how easy is it for Our Creator God to make the Devil powerless and/or render him idle and impotent. How about just a click of His fingers or a blink of His eye!!!"

Then why didn't God do this in the very instant that the devil became the devil? Why allow the devil to wreak havoc on earth, "to steal, kill, and destroy?" John 10:10 What good was served? Regarding Lucifer's freedom, why didn't this angel recognize the error and ask pardon, unless having chosen rebellion, Lucifer, et al. were sealed in this choice? No indication is given in Scripture that Lucifer repents.

Rev. 12:7 There was war in the sky. Michael and his angels made war on the dragon. The dragon and his angels made war. 8 They didn't prevail, neither was a place found for him any more in heaven. 9 The great dragon was thrown down, the old serpent, he who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world. He was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. 10 I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying, "Now is come the salvation, the power, and the Kingdom of our God, and the authority of his Christ; for the accuser of our brothers has been thrown down, who accuses them before our God day and night."

If it's the "fabrication and lies" of "the Christian religion" that concern you, then you may as well write your own Bible, because you've clearly departed from the one that Christians use.

Hello Lex,

Would you mind having a few reading lessons before you next reply, as what I said was this: It is what you say that is worth less than an empty baked bean can, not that YOU were worth less than an empty baked bean can. I would never personally insult a person or a fellow man created in God's image, but I will certainly insult the meaningless object of their misplaced futile worship i.e. their stupid religion.

Now three questions for you:

If we are carnally minded before conversion (which we are) and therefore God's enemy or Spiritually blind, how can we choose something we cannot see and are not even aware of?

In this carnal condition we are in bondage and in slavery to sin, so how can a slave have free will; in fact a slave has no freedom whatsoever so where does 'free will' fit into this situation?

Where does 'free will' fit in when we come to the subject of predestination?

We need to clear this issue before I answer your other points.

y2t

"what I said was this: It is what you say that is worth less than an empty baked bean can, not that YOU were worth less than an empty baked bean can."

I am what I say. I am an incarnate spirit, not a barking dog. "From the fullness of the heart, the mouth speaks." You reject what I say, you reject me. In your ill-considered opinion, I am "worth less than an empty baked bean can."

"Where does 'free will' fit in when we come to the subject of predestination?"

I'm not a Calvinist. Nor am I a Lutheran. The fall of Adam and Eve from original sanctifying grace did not render them "Totally depraved," a la Calvin. Nor are we piles of fecal matter that are "covered" by Christ's righteousness, a la Luther. Grace perfects human nature, Rome teaches, a nature that has been gravely wounded by the fall, not destroyed.

How did those in Romans who did not have the law even know that there is a difference between right and wrong? They possessed conscience, and would be judged on the basis of this light of understanding, informed by God's grace, that had been given to them, since God is not willing that any should perish, as you wrote and I agree.

Consider Paradise. Adam and Eve disobeyed an explicit command, but were immediately promised a redeemer. Not so the tempting serpent, a "type" of the devil, who was "cursed." Adam and Eve would grieve the loss of Paradise -conscience- while the serpent would simply continue plotting ways to destroy them and their kids, us, having been confirmed in malice by the "curse." The truth is not in this damned being and never will be.

Those who are predestined to eternal life have been in Christ forever, but take this to heart as well, y2t. God's foreknowledge of the choices that we will make does not determine what those choices will be. (Augustine) We are free to choose because God gives grace to all.

The mystery of election is that those who find life in Christ in this life have ALWAYS been in Christ, but as far as they know, they've simply made a choice to follow Him at some point and have continued with it, while the rest have NO CAUSE to complain about being "cut off" and damned, because it is their OWN CHOICES that they freely make to not follow Christ and to persist in disobedience that does them in. This is the mystery of iniquity, y2t. The damned are always heading toward hell, and they freely choose it, one choice at a time, while the blessed of God are always heading toward heaven, and they freely choose it, one choice at a time.

Two mysteries, each by definition beyond human comprehension, and it is the height of presumption to say of any individual what their final destiny will be or is. All that we can say, for example, is that hell could arguably be Hitler's final end, but only God knows the answer. WE DON'T.

If thi