← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Gregor
Thread ID: 20863 | Posts: 10 | Started: 2005-11-02
2005-11-02 17:18 | User Profile
In the book of Numbers (22-25), there is an account of a prophet named Balaam. He was gifted by God that whomsoever he blessed was blessed with good things, and whosmsoever he cursed was brought down. He was hired by the Moabite king Balak to curse the nation of Israel when they were coming out of Egypt to take possession of the land God promised them.
Balaam tried several times to curse the people of God, for at this time, the Hebrews WERE the people of God, and God rebuked him and only let him bless Israel. So Balaam lost out on his reward. Then he changed his tactics. He [COLOR=black]counseled[/COLOR] Balak to cause the Israelites to offend God by tempting them into sexual sin and idolatry. Of course, we know that Israel fell into the trap and God jumped them for it.
[COLOR=red]Now, there are modern day Balaams, those who call themselves Jews, but are not - Rev 2:9; 3:9. Having rejected their Messiah, they have lost God's blessing and live totally for what they can gain in this life. They push every brand of immorality and idolatry (think: ACLU), for OTHERS mind you, not for themselves, knowing that those who fall into these sins will reap judgment.[/COLOR] Then they pick thru the ashes, as it were, for the gold and the jewels. And so doing, destroy many lives and families, living off the ill-gotten gains. For an excellent discourse on this subject, see Petr's [URL="http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14989"]http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14989[/URL]
The true followers of God, those who accept the promised Savior, being naive and trusting, find it hard to accept that people would maliciously lead them astray. Especially people who claim the title of "the chosen people of God." So they blindly follow, and even support these deceivers in their work!
It is necessary for those who know the truth to point out the lies of these deceivers and warn the masses of the danger that these people pose - Rev 2:13-15.
2005-11-02 20:43 | User Profile
I have often had Balaam in mind when I have thought about this hypothesis: [I]"is it possible for Holy Spirit to speak through someone who is not saved and who is going to Hell?"[/I]
The case of Balaam would seem to indicate YES - in the Book of Numbers Yahweh used him to transmit His prophecies, even against his own will.
So, theoretically, it would be possible for someone to get saved by listening a sermon of some hypocritical preacher who does not live like a Christian in his private life, but whose gospel is still[B] doctrinally correct[/B].
Petr
2005-11-02 20:48 | User Profile
[quote=Petr]I have often had Balaam in mind when I have thought about this hypothesis: [I]"is it possible for Holy Spirit to speak through someone who is not saved and who is going to Hell?"[/I]
The case of Balaam would seem to indicate YES - in the Book of Numbers Yahweh used him to transmit His prophecies, even against his own will.
So, theoretically, it would be possible for someone to get saved by listening a sermon of some hypocritical preacher who does not live like a Christian in his private life, but whose gospel is still[B] doctrinally correct[/B]. That is the orthodox Christian opinion. Both the Catholics and the Orthodox, for example, hold that the validity of a sacrament, such as the Eucharist, is not dependent upon the virtuousness of the priest who administers it.
2005-11-02 21:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]Both the Catholics and the Orthodox, for example, hold that the validity of a sacrament, such as the Eucharist, is not dependent upon the virtuousness of the priest who administers it.[/QUOTE]
You are right, that would be a poor way to argue against it.
(Even though Jesus Christ's warning that "the tree shall be known by its fruits" must not be entirely neglected either...)
Knowledgeable Protestants would rather say that Catholic and Orthodox ideas of Eucharist are doctrinally false, and that personal virtuousness of popes, saints or priests would not help at all if it were so.
As[B] Gresham Machen[/B] pointed out, apostle Paul was ready to be lenient on personal foibles just as long as the gospel message was pure in itself, but was ruthless even if "an angel from heaven" would come to preach false gospel:
[SIZE="3"][FONT="Times New Roman"][COLOR="Red"]" [B]One notable example of such tolerance is to be found during his imprisonment at Rome, as attested by the Epistle to the Philippians. [/B]Apparently certain Christian teachers at Rome had been jealous of Paul's greatness. As long as he had been at liberty they had been obliged to take a secondary place; but now that he was in prison, they seized the supremacy. They sought to raise up affliction for Paul in his bonds; they preached Christ even of envy and strife. [B]In short, the rival preachers made of the preaching of the gospel a means to the gratification of low personal ambition; it seems to have been about as mean a piece of business as could well be conceived. But Paul was not disturbed. "[I]Whether in presence, or in truth[/I]," he said, "[I]Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice[/I]" (Phil. i. 18). [/B][B]The way in which the preaching was being carried on was wrong, but the message itself was true; and Paul was far more interested in the content of the message than in the manner of its presentation.[/B] It is impossible to conceive a finer piece of broad-minded tolerance.
"But the tolerance of Paul was not indiscriminate. He displayed no tolerance, for example, in Galatia. There, too, there were rival preachers. But Paul had no tolerance for them. [B]"[I]But though we[/I]," he said, "[I]or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed[/I]" (Gal. i. 8).[/B] What is the reason for the difference in the apostle's attitude in the two cases? What is the reason for the broad tolerance in Rome, and the fierce anathemas in Galatia? The answer is perfectly plain. [B]In Rome, Paul was tolerant, because there the content of the message that was being proclaimed by the rival teachers was true; in Galatia he was intolerant, because there the content of the rival message was false. [U]In neither case did personalities have anything to do with Paul's attitude[/U][/B]."[/COLOR][/FONT][/SIZE]
[url]http://homepage.mac.com/shanerosenthal/reformationink/jgmchrandlib2.htm[/url]
Petr
2005-11-02 21:06 | User Profile
[quote=Petr] Knowledgeable Protestants would rather say that Catholic and Orthodox ideas of Eucharist are doctrinally false, and that personal virtuousness of popes, saints or priests would not help at all if it were so. Anglicans and Lutherans both hold the same views of the Eucharist that Catholics and Orthodox do, so I'm not sure I agree that 'knowledgable Protestants would rather say that Catholic and Orthodox ideas of Eucharist are doctrinally false.' Have you broken the news to Tex that his denomination's view of the Real Presence is incorrect?
2005-11-02 21:13 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]Have you broken the news to Tex that his denomination's view of the Real Presence is incorrect?[/QUOTE]
Don't put words into my mouth. I do believe in Real Presence myself, and currently I am examining whether the Roman Catholic claim that Reformed churches "deny Real Presence" is true or not.
Even this Calvinist tract against transsubstantiation says thus: [FONT="Arial"] [COLOR="Indigo"]"Fourteenth. I heartily agree that the Ante-Nicene Fathers with their high view of Holy Scripture taught the [B][U]real presence[/U][/B] of our Saviour at His Table. For they believed what Holy Scripture here teaches. The Ante-Nicenes, holding with Holy Scripture to Christ's [U][B]Spiritual [/B][/U]presence, therefore denied His[U][B] physical[/B][/U] presence in the bread and the wine. Indeed, even no Post-Nicene Church Father advocated transubstantiation-until Radbertus in 831, and more particularly Lanfranc in 1049 A.D. Nor was this false theory ever Eastern-Orthodox theory-nor even official RC theory until it became so in 1215 A.D."[/COLOR][/FONT]
[url]http://www.spiritone.com/~wing/nontrans.htm[/url]
What is the Eastern Orthodox position on this issue?
Petr
2005-11-02 21:19 | User Profile
[quote=Petr] What is the Eastern Orthodox position on this issue? The Orthodox emphatically believe in the Real Presence and consider it a matter of dogma. They do not, however, get into theorizing about exactly [I]how[/I] it occurs (such as the Catholic idea of transubstantiation). Instead, the Orthodox simply say that the Real Presence is true, but that its exact workings are a mystery.
2005-11-02 21:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]The Orthodox emphatically believe in the Real Presence and consider it a matter of dogma. They do not, however, get into theorizing about exactly [I]how[/I] it occurs (such as the Catholic idea of transubstantiation). Instead, the Orthodox simply say that the Real Presence is true, but that its exact workings are a mystery.[/QUOTE]
If this is true, that's one more reason for me (besides not teaching the doctrine of Purgatory, allowing priests to marry, etc.) to value Eastern Orthodox churches higher than the Roman Catholic institution.
Do Eastern Orthodox have practises like putting Eucharists into monstrances, carrying them around in parades and adoring and bowing to them?
Petr
2005-11-02 23:12 | User Profile
[quote=Petr]I have often had Balaam in mind when I have thought about this hypothesis: [I]"is it possible for Holy Spirit to speak through someone who is not saved and who is going to Hell?"[/I]
The case of Balaam would seem to indicate YES - in the Book of Numbers Yahweh used him to transmit His prophecies, even against his own will.
So, theoretically, it would be possible for someone to get saved by listening a sermon of some hypocritical preacher who does not live like a Christian in his private life, but whose gospel is still[B] doctrinally correct[/B].
Oh yeah. "Is Saul among the prophets?" Caiaphas even prophesied that one man would die for all the people. And of course, Paul in the passage you quoted.
In the Balaam story He spoke thru a jackass. He still does. Every Sunday. :lol: (couldn't find a rimshot icon)
2005-11-03 00:26 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]The Orthodox emphatically believe in the Real Presence and consider it a matter of dogma. They do not, however, get into theorizing about exactly [I]how[/I] it occurs (such as the Catholic idea of transubstantiation). Instead, the Orthodox simply say that the Real Presence is true, but that its exact workings are a mystery.[/QUOTE]
Nice, Q. Looks like we apostate Lutherans and the Orthodox agree on something as that is exactly our position concerning the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper.
With regards to the virtuousness of the giver or receiver of the Sacraments (baptism or Lord's Supper), I think Luther addressed it nicely when he queried "does gold cease to be gold when it adorns a harlot's neck"? Ironically, I believe he asked that question when addressing the subject of the efficacy of baptizing Jews.