William Raspberry, seorang jurnalis kulit hitam di Amerika yg pernah mendapatkan Pulitzer Prize, berkata demikian…

(saya terjemahkan secara bebas)

Kalau saya dapat menawarkan sebuah solusi agar Amerika dapat bertahan, dan khususnya bagi orang kulit hitam di Amerika, maka solusinya adalah dengan memulihkan keluarga-keluarga yang ada saat ini. Kalau anda bertanya bagaimana caranya, maka jawabannya – dengan mudah dan tanpa ragu-ragu – adalah: selamatkan para anak laki-laki…”

Dunia modern semakin ditandai dengan ketidakhadiran figur ayah dalam keluarga. Hal ini terjadi karena memang si ibu adalah seorang single parent, atau si ayah kurang menghadirkan fungsi peran ayah yang semestinya – atau bahkan tidak sama sekali.

Keadaan ini sering membuat para anak, khususnya anak laki-laki, kehilangan figur kepemimpinan yang seharusnya ia dapatkan untuk pembentukan kepribadiannya sebagai seorang pria. Apabila ia tidak mendapatkan teladan kepemimpinan yang baik, ia juga tidak dapat memimpin keluarganya secara optimal.

Ini jadi lebih parah lagi waktu kita dihadapkan pada kenyataan bahwa sebagai pria Katolik (untuk yang akan/sudah menikah), kita dipanggil untuk memimpin keluarga kita kepada hidup yang kudus di dalam Tuhan. Seorang romo-pun dipanggil untuk menjadi spiritual father bagi umatnya, itu sebabnya ia dipanggil “romo”. Pengalaman seorang anak akan ayahnya sangat kuat dalam membentuk persepsi yang benar tentang Allah Bapa. Pengalaman yang kurang baik akan seorang ayah dapat merusak gambaran positif kita akan Allah Bapa yang maha kasih dan bijaksana. Gimana aku bisa percaya Allah Bapa yang tidak kelihatan, kalau bapak yang kelihatan saja tidak pernah sungguh-sungguh hadir dalam hidupku?

David Blankenhorn, seorang penulis Amerika, menerbitkan bukunya yang berjudul Fatherless America: Confronting Our Most Urgent Social Problem. Dia menuliskan bahwa akar dari banyak masalah sosial yang muncul di Amerika adalah ketidakhadiran seorang ayah dalam keluarga.

This is a very urgent matter guys, karena keadaan serupa juga sebenarnya sedang terjadi di Indonesia, atau di Jakarta, atau mungkin juga di rumah-rumah kita. We need to get serious in dealing with this issue. Masa depan Gereja, dan masa depan bangsa, bergantung pada keluarga-keluarga di dalamnya, yaitu keluarga saya, dan keluarga anda. Dan setiap keluarga akan sangat diwarnai oleh siapa yang memimpin keluarga-keluarga ini sekarang: Pria Katolik – seperti ayah saya dan ayah anda, – dan juga mungkin Pria Katolik – seperti saya, dan seperti anda!

What do you think?

We need to learn to become a better man everyday – a wise man of God – a true loving and humble Catholic man, – so that we can be good fathers to our children.

Santo Josef, doakanlah kami!

Sizleri ümitsizliğe düşürmek istemem amma Türkiye’de kafadaki duvarlar yıkılmadıkça barış, hukuk, refah, demokrasi için Kürt, Alevi. Ermeni açılımlarının çok da kolay olmayacak.

M. Latif YILDIZ*

1968’de Çekoslovakya’nın başkenti Prag’da sosyalizmin insani yüzünü aramaya kalkışanlar Varşova Paktı orduları tarafından ezilirken öğretmen okulunu yeni bitirmiştim. Yaş haddi nedeniyle öğretmen olarak göreve atamam yapılmayınca kaderin sürüklediği bir serüven sonucu yayına yeni başlayan bir gazetenin İstanbul’da çiçeği burnunda muhabiri olunca bir gazeteci olarak 20 ve de 21. yüzyılda yaşanan bazı olayların da canlı şahidi oldum.

20. Yüzyıl aslında insanlık tarihi için utançlar ile dolu bir yüzyıldır. İki dünya savaşı, milyonlarca insanın ölümü, Osmanlı İmparatorluğunu işgal ve bölme hesapları, kurtuluş savaşı, en korkuncu yaşanan soykırım olayları ve 1961’de inşa edilen Berlin duvarı.

Bizde de adı cumhuriyet olarak kurulan ama vatandaşının çoğu Kürt ve Müslüman diye tehdit olarak gören sistemin 20. yüzyılda sıkıyönetim, olağanüstü hal ve de 21. yüzyılın ilk on yılında kafalarda yükselen duvarların devam ettiği bir dönemi yaşıyoruz.

Böylesi berbat bir asırda 9 Kasım 1989’ da sistemin iflası ve halkın isyanı sonucu Berlin duvarının yıkılışı Avrupa’dan başlayarak yayılan demokrasi kıvılcımı bir şans olarak belirdi belirmesine, ancak ülkemize uğramak için bir hayli nazlanıyor.

Totaliter rejimlere karşı başkaldırı 1989 tarihinde umut verirken Prag’da bir dükkânın vitrininde “ 89, 68’in baş aşağı duran halidir” yazılı poster 21 yıl gibi uzun bir süreç alsa da dikta rejimlerine karşı demokrasiyi işaret ediyordu. Yalnız Alman halkı değil birçok toplum, birey, ülke, devlet, ulus Berlin duvarının yıkılışından etkilendi.

9 Kasım’ı 10 Kasım’a bağlayan gece duvar fiziki olarak yıkılırken 2. Dünya savaşı sonrası başlayan 50 yıllık soğuk savaşın sona erdiğini fiili haber verdiği gibi 2 yıl içinde Sovyet sisteminin de çöküşünü hazırladı.

Avrupalılar gelecekleri için duvarı yıkmakla kalmadılar. Başka şeyler de yaptılar. Örneğin; yasalarını demokrasinin en yüksek standardına çıkartarak kurumlarını çok kısa bir zaman zarfında dönüştürmeyi başardılar.

Anayasalarını hak ve özgürlükleri öne çıkartarak ileri yasalar ile yeni baştan yazdılar. Kendileri için yeni bir dünya yarattılar. Kâğıt üstünde değil, içselleştirerek fiili uyguladılar.

Bu değişime şahit olan bu kuşak ancak yüz yıllara sığabilecek gelişmelere yaşayarak tanıklık eder. 1968 kuşağı olarak 1968 ve 1989 Dünya’da ve de Türkiye’de 1960 ihtilali, 1971 muhtırası, 12 Eylül darbesi ve E Muhtıralar ile 49 yıldır demokrasi liginden adımız yoktu. 13 Kasım 2009’ da TBMM’ inde yapılan görüşme bütün olumsuzluklarıyla birlikte kafalardaki duvarların yıkılmasına yani yüz yılda yeni bir ivme kazandığı anlamını çıkartabiliriz.

Avrupa’daki duvarın yıkılışı başka duvarların yıkılışına öncülük etti mi derseniz cevabım hayır olacak. AB ye girecek Türkiye karşı ön yargılarında direttiler, diretiyorlar. Yalnız bununla kalınsa neyse, başka duvarlar devam ediyor, hatta yeni duvarlar örüyorlar.

Bakınız bugün ilk etapta aklıma gelen bazı duvarları sayacağım.

Kıbrıs’taki Lefkoşe duvarı, Belfast’ta Katolik ve Protestan mahalleyi ayıran 15 Km. lik duvar. İki Kore’yi ayıran 241 Km. lik duvar. İsrail’in 2002 yılında Filistinlilere karşı örmeyi sürdürdüğü Berlin Duvarı’nın 4 katı ve yüksekliği 8 metre olan, bittiğinde 703 Km. yi bulacak olan duvar.

Fas’ta AB’ye girişi önlemek için oluşturulan çelik duvar. ABD ve Meksika sınırı boyunca uzanan duvar. Hindistan’ın Keşmir’in de olan duvar akla ilk gelenler.

9 Kasım 1989’da Berlin Duvarının yıkılışı, dünya tarihinde bir dönüm noktası olarak geçtiyse de devam eden duvarlara karşı ne yazık ki sessiz kaldıkları da bir gerçektir.

Türkiye’de mi; 12 Eylül 1980’de başlayan darbe anayasası 29 yıl sonrada olsa değişim için meydana gelen gelişmeler kafadaki duvarları yıkmaya yönelik umut verici gelişmeler olacak mı, doğrusu kuşkuluyuz. 10 Kasım Meclis görüşmelerinde Atatürk’ü konuşuyorum diye Tunceli üzerinden gönderme yapan Onur Öymen’in “analar ağlamaya devam etsin” gibi duvarları daha da yükseltmek isteyen ve de bu saatten sonra bölgede bir tabela partisi bile olamayacak bir CHP ve MHP Mecliste olmazsa belki bir şeyler olur.

Ülkemizde Olağanüstü Hal, sıkı Yönetimler ile yıllarca fili duvarlar örüldüğü gibi kafalardaki duvarlar fiili duvarlardan da kalın olarak karşımıza çıkıyor. Şimdi kafalardaki duvarların yıkılması arifesindeyiz. Kafadaki duvarları yıkmak için cesaret gerektiriyor. Ne yazık ki korku, çekingenlik, endişeli yaklaşım nedeniyle kafalardaki duvarların yıkılmasının pek kolay olmayacağını 13 Kasım 2009 tarihinde Meclis görüşmelerinde şahit olduk.

Avrupa’nın duvarının yıkılışı üzerinde 21 yıl geçmesine rağmen Berlin’de yüz binler bir araya gelerek bu değişimi sevinçle kutluyorlar. Bizimkiler ise zihnimizdeki duvarı yıkmak için bir korku, bir çekingenlik, bir endişe içindedirler. Kafalardaki duvara çentikler, çekiçler, taşlar atanları bile vaz geçirmek için bütün güçleri ile çalışıyorlar. Bu yüzden balyozu eline alıp açık seçik duvarın üzerine çıkıp yıkmaya kimse cesaret edemiyor.

Türkiye’nin duvarları savaşmadan, çatışmadan, kan dökülmeden bir gün balyoz vurulacak mı kestirmek mümkün değil. Ama Meclisteki açılım ile bir umut ışığı belirdi.

13 Kasım 2009 tarihinde TBMM’ inde Cumhuriyet’in ilanından 86 yıl sonrada olsa kördüğüm yapan sistemin değişim sinyalleri belirmeye başladı gibi.

Çünkü birileri 72 milyonun demokrasinin nimetlerini kavradığını anladı. Ve bunu gören bazı siyasilerde anladılar ki demokrasi yalnız halkı değil onları da koruyacak gibi.

En azından Kürt sorununun daha fazla inkâr ve imha ile sonuçlanmayacağı, dağa çıkan, ülkeyi terk eden Kürtleri yurda kabul ederek sorunun çözülmesine katkı sunacaklarını anladılar gibi. “Gibi” diyorum çünkü şu anda o konumdayız.

Çentik atanlar yalnız Kürtler değil, azınlıkların, Alevilerin, Sünnilerin, dini, insani ve vicdani vatandaşın önünde örülen derin duvarın yıkılmasıyla birliğin oluşabileceğini anladılar gibi. Türkiye’nin kronikleşmiş sorunlarından kurtulmasının tek yolunun insan hakları ve demokrasiden geçtiği 86 yıl sonra da olsa en azından Arınç’ın şahsında AKP gördü gibi.

Bu nedenlerle sürecin tamamlanması için Kandilden, Mahmur’dan, Avrupa’dan kimseyi tahrik etmeyecek ve fakat barışı pekiştirecek dönüşleri sürmeli.

Üniversitelerde Kürtçe başta olmak üzere doğu dilleri akademik statüye kavuşmalı.

Tıpkı Kürtçe yayın yapan televizyonların RÜTÜK tarafından önü açıldığı gibi.

Bütün bunların gerçekleşmesi için topluma önderlik yapması gereken; kamuoyunun sesi, kulağı ve dili sayılan; ama savaş, kan ve gözyaşı körükleyen meslektaşlarınız buna izin verirler mi sorusunu yönelttiğinizi duyar gibiyim.

Haklısınız, bu ülkenin 86 yıldır yaşadığı en büyük sorun benim de 41 yıldır iç içe yaşadığım “yazılı silahlı güç” adı verilen medya olduğunu biliyorum.

Özellikle son yıllarda tekelleşen sermaye yoğunlaşmasına karşı mücadele etmek bir hayli güçleşti. Medya – siyaset – ticaret ilişkisi sonucu ortaya çıkan yozlaşma; editöryal bağımsızlık ve nitelikli yayancılığın yok olması; her türlü sansürün; politik, askeri ve çıkar çevrelerin işbirliği sonucu medyanın durumu vahimden öte korkunç.

Onurlu meslektaşlarımı sendikasızlaştırılma, patronlarının tehdit ve baskısı altında görevlerini yapamadıklarını biliyor, görüyor ve yaşıyoruz. Demokrasinin kırdığı diğer duvarlar gibi bizde de kafalardaki duvarlar yıkılır mı; daha özgür, tarafsız ve doğru bir medya oluşur mu bilemiyorum.

Batıda olduğu gibi Türkiye’nin de duvarlar yıkılacak mı bekleyip göreceğiz. Duvarlarını yıkan batı ile bütünleşmek için bıçak sırtında yürüdüğümüz günleri yaşıyoruz.

Türkiye’de kafalardaki Berlin duvarının yıkılması için 12 Eylül anayasasının tümden değişmesi gerekiyor. Ancak iş o kadar kolay gözükmüyor.

Mecliste demokratik açılımdan kaçan bir CHP ve İttihatçı doktrinirlerini mecliste seslendiren MHP oldukça bu iş zor yol alır. Belgeli darbeciyi içerde 24 saat tutamayan ve darbenin yanında saf tutan adalet, askeri vesayetten kurtulmayan bir ülkede iddiası bırakın duvarların yıkılması demokrasinin “D” sinin gerçekleşeceğinden kimse emin değil.

Sizleri ümitsizliğe düşürmek istemem amma Türkiye’de kafadaki duvarlar yıkılmadıkça barış, hukuk, refah, demokrasi için Kürt, Alevi. Ermeni açılımlarının çok da kolay olmayacak.

Her şeye rağmen Demokrasi ve barışa karşı olanlar yeni mevziler kazanmak için yeni buluşlar icat etseler de halkın özgürlük, demokrasi, refah ve huzur isteminin önünde daha fazla duramayacakları yaşadığımız gelişmeler ortaya koymaktadır.

*Gazeteci- Yazar

Hari Minggu kemarin (22 November 2009), aku dan temanku, Joanna sengaja ikut misa di Gereja St. Anna, Duren Sawit (Jakarta Timur). Biasanya kami misa di kapel dekat rumah yang bisa ditempuh dengan berjalan kaki. Awalnya sih, dia cuma bilang kalau di St. Anna ada laki-laki ganteng bazar seusai misa. Baiklah, aku sih oke-oke saja mau misa di mana.

Setelah parkir motor, kami masuk pelataran gereja dan aku melihat Bapak Uskup Mgr Julius Darmaatmadja SJ sedang keluar dari mobil. Wah, misa yang cukup meriah sepertinya nih. Dasar aku nggak ngeh kalau misa kali ini adalah misa ulang tahun paroki St. Anna yang ke-25.

Sesampai di dalam gereja, Joanna bilang bahwa gereja ini dulu pernah dibom. Itu lo, waktu musim pengeboman pas misa Natal beberapa tahun lalu. Dan aku kembali terheran-heran, gereja seperti ini dibom? He? Nggak salah? Bayanganku, kalau orang mau ngebom, dia pilih gereja yang dekat dengan jalan raya dong. Kalau St. Anna ini, gerejanya agak masuk, agak jauh dari jalan raya, dan dekat sekali dengan kompleks perumahan. Berarti dulu si pengebom itu, memang niat banget ya. Sampai jalan masuk-masuk pun dijabani.

Nah, ketika doa Syukur Agung, telingaku mendengar nama Mgr Ign Suharyo Pr disebut-sebut. Mendadak aku jadi bertanya-tanya, “Aku sedang di Jogja atau di Jakarta sih ini?” Perlu diketahui, pada doa Syukur Agung, ada bagian yang menyebut nama uskup setempat dan Paus. Setahuku, Mgr Ign Suharyo Pr, kan uskup Keuskupan Agung Semarang (dan Jogja masuk keuskupan Semarang). Sedangkan aku ini kan sedang di Jakarta (Keuskupan Agung Jakarta–KAJ), mestinya yang disebut Mgr Julius Darmaatmadja SJ dong. Apakah aku mendadak berpindah ke Jogja? Halah, lebay deh!

Sepulang dari misa di St. Anna dan puas makan nasi tumpeng, aku pun browsing di Internet. Dan ternyata Mgr Ign. Suharyo Pr. sejak tanggal 25 Juli kemarin secara ditunjuk sebagai Uskup Koajutor atau uskup pembantu. Jabatan Uskup Koajutor bisa secara otomatis menjadi uskup bila uskup sebelumnya pensiun (emeritus) Jadi, beliau ini on the way menggantikan Mgr Julius Darmaatmadja SJ yang akan emeritus atau pensiun.

Mgr Ign Suharyo Pr ini dilahirkan di Sedayu, Yogyakarta, tanggal 9 Juli 1950. Beliau adalah putra dari Bapak Florentinus Amir Hardjodisastra (alm.) dan Ibu Theodora Murni Hardjodisastra. Beliau ini lahir sebagai dalam keluarga besar–10 bersaudara. Dari 10 bersaudara itu, seorang sudah meninggal. Jadi, tinggal 6 putra dan 3 putri. Sepertinya keluarga Bapak Florentinus Amir Hardjodisastra itu cukup religius, karena 2 putranya menjadi pastor, yaitu Pst. Suitbertus Sunardi, OCSO dan 2 putrinya menjadi suster/biarawati, yaitu Sr. Marganingsih dan Sr. Sri Murni. Aku cuma mikir, dua putranya itu kok bisa jadi pastor yang “tidak umum”, yang satu jadi uskup, dan yang satunya lagi menjadi pertapa. Itu kalau pertemuan keluarga, yang diobrolkan apa ya?

Aku tidak terlalu mengenal Mgr Ign. Suharyo Pr ini, tetapi aku ingat saat aku di Asrama Syantikara dulu setiap Rabu dan Jumat ada misa di kapel asrama. Kalau misa hari Rabu, pastor yang memimpin misa (zaman aku masih di sana lo), pastornya itu-itu saja–Romo Padmo. Tapi kalau hari Jumat, pastornya ganti-ganti. Nah, salah satunya dulu yang kadang memimpin misa di sana adalah Pastor Ign. Suharyo itu. Yang aku ingat dari beliau adalah, beliau kalau bicara itu tertata sekali. Nada bicaranya datar dan halus. Tipikal orang Jawa lah.

Nah, suatu kali dikabarkan bahwa Keuskupan Agung Semarang (KAS), uskupnya ganti. Aku cuma dengar suster asrama mengatakan bahwa yang menjadi uskup adalah Romo Haryo. “Jangan-jangan yang jadi uskup, romo yang kadang misa di asrama ya?” pikirku. Dan ternyata memang begitulah kenyataannya. Aku sama sekali tidak menduga kalau pastor yang berwajah baby-face dan yang bicaranya halus itu menjadi Uskup KAS.

Dan sekarang, ketika aku tahu bahwa Mgr Ign Suharyo Pr akan menggantikan Mgr Julius Darmaatmadja SJ, aku jadi berpikir, “Bisa-bisa besok beliau bisa menjadi Kardinal.” Dan jika menjadi Kardinal, maka beliau bisa terpilih menjadi Paus. Hmmm, besok jangan kaget ya kalau ada Paus dari Indonesia

*Foto pinjam dari sini.

VATIKAN (UCAN) – ”Saya sangat puas dengan hasil pertemuan [saya dan Paus]. Sangat seperti yang saya harapkan,” kata Uskup Agung Canterburry, Rowan Williams setelah perbincangan pertamanya dengan Paus Benediktus XVI sejak Paus memberi kemudahan bagi umat Anglikan masuk Gereja Katolik.

Ada beberapa alasan yang membuat Pemimpin Anglikan itu merasa puas, seperti yang dia utarakan kepada BBC dan UCA News di Pusat Anglikan di Roma sebelum kembali ke London. Dia menceritakan tentang pertemuannya selama 30 menit dengan Paus pada 21 November.

Pertama, “Saya bisa menyampaikan beberapa hal terkait apa yang kami sebagai umat Anglikan rasakan terhadap konstitusi apostolik tersebut.”

Yang lebih penting, tambahnya, “Saya sangat bahagia mendengar Paus menegaskan kembali komitmennya untuk melanjutkan proses dialog resmi antara kedua Gereja ini.”

Dalam konstitusi apostolik “Anglicanorum Coetibus” (Kelompok Anglikan) yang dikeluarkan Kongregasi Ajaran Iman Vatikan pada 9 November,  disebutkan akan dibentuk ‘personal ordinariates,’ semacam keuskupan, untuk umat Anglikan yang ingin bergabung dengan Gereja Katolik.

Dengan menjelaskan konstitusi apostolik sebagai “sebuah langkah pastoral bagi sejumlah orang dan kelompok,” uskup agung itu mengatakan bahwa hal itu “bukan merupakan bentuk baru ekumene seperti yang dikatakan sejumlah orang; tidak ada agenda baru.”

Lebih jauh, tambahnya, “tidak ada bagian dari konstitusi apostolik itu yang bisa ditafsirkan umat Anglikan sebagai semacam serangan fajar.” Dia mengungkapkan, ia dan Paus “sudah berbicara panjang lebar tentang hal itu.”

Uskup agung itu menambahkan ia dan Paus juga berbicara tentang “hal-hal positif dari kerja sama itu” dan mengatakan bahwa Paus “sangat antusias” dengan Fase Ketiga dari dialog resmi antara Anglikan dan Katolik. Pembicaraan informal dimulai minggu ini.

Dialog resmi antara dua Gereja itu dimulai tahun 1967 dengan pembentukan Komisi Internasional Anglikan-Katolik Roma. Fase pertama dari dialog itu berakhir tahun 1981 sementara Fase Kedua dimulai pada tahun 1983 dan berakhir tahun 2004.

Uskup Agung Williams menggambarkan “suasana hati” pada pertemuannya dengan paus “tidak beda jauh” dengan pertemuan sebelumnya. Mereka membahas sejumlah isu termasuk situasi ekumenis dan kunjungan Paus ke Inggris tahun depan.

Dalam sebuah pernyataan, Vatikan melukiskan pembicaraan itu sebagai “pembicaraan dari hati’. Pembicaraan antara keduanya mengukuhkan bahwa kedua pemimpin agama tersebut sudah fokus pada “kejadian-kejadian yang mempengaruhi hubungan antara Katolik dan Anglikan,” dan menegaskan kembali “tekad bersama untuk melanjutkan dan mengkonsolidasi hubungan ekumenis antara umat Katolik dan Anglikan.”

Uskup Agung Williams tiba di Roma pada 19 November dan menjadi pembicara utama di Universitas Kepausan Gregoriana pada kesempatan perayaan seabad lahirnya Jan Kardinal Willebrands asal Belanda, seorang Katolik yang menjadi pioner ekumene.

Walter Kardinal Kasper, ketua Dewan Kepausan untuk Persatuan Umat Kristiani, juga sebagai pembicara utama pada perayaan itu, menegaskan bahwa peraturan baru untuk umat Anglikan tersebut “bukan suatu ekumene baru.”

Sebaliknya, ini sudah “sangat sesuai dengan Dekrit Konsili Vatikan Kedua tentang Ekumene, yang secara jelas membedakan antara pertobatan pribadi-pribadi atau kelompok pada satu pihak, dan ekumene sebagai dialog dengan Gereja lain dengan tujuan persatuan penuh” di lain pihak. ***

http://www.ucanews.com/2009/11/24/vatikan-pemimpin-anglikan-usulan-vatikan-bukan-%E2%80%98serangan-fajar%E2%80%99/

Mencoba memahami Kristus untuk saya bukanlah masalah yang mudah. Sebagai seseorang yang hidup dalam lingkungan Gereja, suatu saat saya tersadar bahwa Kristus yang tiap hari saya sebut nama-Nya, pada akhirnya toh sepertinya saya tidak mengenal Dia. Saya bersyukur bahwa kedua orang tua saya sudah mengajari saya untuk percaya kepada-Nya. Sehingga saya semakin diajak untuk mengenal siapa yang saya sembah. Namun, pada akhirnya saya menyadari bahwa percaya adanya Tuhan lebih mudah ketimbang percaya kepada Tuhan.

Setelah kesadaran itu muncul, saya pun mulai meragukan iman saya, agama saya, bahkan kepada Tuhan sendiri saya menjadi ragu. Tiba-tiba saya tidak bisa menerima Kristus sebagai Tuhan begitu saja. Namun, pergulatan saya dalam mencari Kristus tentu saja tidak berhenti sampai disini. Saya sadar bahwa tidak semua orang telah sampai pada tahap pemahaman seperti ini. Sehingga sulit bagi saya untuk membagikan permasalahan ini pada seseorang.

Otomatis pencarian saya akan Kristus berjalan terus-menerus melewati hari-hari yang panjang. Selama hampir tiga tahun saya berjalan tanpa arah dan menganut Kristus yang sama seperti kebanyakan orang. Kristus yang hanya dipahami tanpa mengenal siapa Dia sesungguhnya. Akhirnya, sambil tetap mencoba bertahan hidup, saya juga mencari Tuhan.

Pemahaman saya mengenai Kristus muncul ketika saya menyadari bahwa Ia juga hadir di tengah dunia. Namun, tetap saja Kristus masih menjadi misteri yang selubungnya belum bisa saya singkapi. Berangkat dari pertanyaan Yesus kepada Petrus: “Menurutmu siapakah Aku ini?”, sekiranya pertanyaan ini juga menjadi pertanyaan kita dalam memurnikan panggilan kita dalam mengikuti Kristus. Tentu saja pertanyaan ini tidak akan mungkin kita jawab dalam waktu singkat. Mencari Kristus membutuhkan seluruh hidup kita sampai pada akhirnya kita bisa mengimani-Nya. Siapakah Kristus menurut saya? Saya “tidak tahu”.

Maka, tepatlah yang dituliskan A. Setyawan dalam bukunya yang berjudul Orang Gila dari Nazaret bahwa semakin kita berusaha untuk mengenal Allah, semestinya kita sadar bahwa semakin dahsyatlah misteri Allah bagi kita, semakin banyak hal yang tidak kita mengerti, dan semakin sulit rasanya mengenal Allah[1].

Oleh sebab itu, jangan pernah berhenti untuk berusaha mencari dan mengenal Kristus. Dia hadir ditengah-tengah kita dan menyampaikan kehendak-Nya disaat-saat yang tidak disangka-sangka. Tapi justru itulah kita harus selalu siap, sampai saatnya kita bisa menjawab pertanyaan Kristus dengan kata-kata kita sendiri.

Ostatnio pisałem o środkach antykoncepcyjnych i dlaczego są one odradzane przez kościół. Dzisiaj chciałbym napisać o coraz bardziej popularnym temacie jakim jest stosowanie tabletek wczesnoporonnych, czy działających tak aby nie doszło do zagnieżdzenia zapłodnionej komórki jajowej. Czy kościół katolicki uważa stosowanie takich środków za grzech?

Mechanizm działania środków “następnego dnia” nie jest do końca znany

Niewiedza ludzi, jak dokładnie działają środki z grupy “następnego dnia” czy też wczesnoporonne 72h powoduje, że ludzie nieświadomie korzystają z nich nie wiedząc jakie to ma skutki dla ich sumienia i organizmu.

“Prawdą jest, że nie zawsze dysponuje się pełnąwiedzą na temat mechanizmów działania stosowanych środków farmakologicznych, ale badania doświadczalne wykazują, że z pewnością ich skutkiem jest uniemożliwienie implantacji, nawet jeśli nie oznacza to, że środki “przechywtujące” powodują aborcję za każdym razem, gdy się je stosuje, również dlatego, że nie zawsze po stosunku płciowym dochodzi do zapłodnienia. Trzeba jednak zaznaczyć, że u osoby, która chce uniemożliwić implantację embrionu, który ewentualnie został poczęty i w tym celu prosi o tego rodzaju środki farmakologiczne, bądź je przepisuje w ogólnym nastawieniu występuje zamiar aborcji.”

Instrukcja “Dignitas Personae” Dotycząca Niektórych Problemów Bioetycznych str 31/32
Kongregacja Nauki Wiary

Również lekarz wypisujący pigułkę antykoncepcyjną “następnego dnia” popełnia grzech

Tak jak to zostało wytłumaczone w powyższym cytacie, również lekarz, który wypisuje pigułki hormonalne kobiecie, która obawia się, że mogła zajść w ciążę i chce jej zapobiedz – popełnia grzech.

Stosowanie pigułek “następnego dnia” jest grzechem

Jan Paweł drugi kategorycznie wypowiada się na temat stosowania tego rodzaju środków ”wychwytujących” zapłodniony embrion:

Jak wiadomo aborcja jest “niezależnie od tego w jaki sposób zostaje dokonana – świadomym i bezpośrednim zabójstwem istoty ludzkiej w początkowym stadium jej życia, obejmujący okres między poczęciem a narodzeniem.

Jan Paweł II “Evangelium vitae” n.58: AAS87(1995), 476

Prawa i rady kościoła są dla ludzi wierzących, którzy są otwarci na jego naukę

Z pewnością to co przeczytaliście powyżej w wielu z was budzi duże emocje. Niektórzy ludzie mówią, że to “właśnie dlatego nie chodzą do kościoła”. Ja jednak, wbrew tym ludziom powiem inaczej. “Właśnie dlatego chodzę do kościoła, bo potrafi on w rozumny dla mnie sposób obronić prawa boże.”

Ini saya kutipkan tulisan yang aslinya berjudul “Do You Have to Believe in the Trinity to be Saved?” dari http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/

Walau bahasa inggris saya biasa-biasa saja, saya akan mencoba menterjemahkannya namun dengan cara mencicil Kalau ada yang mau membantu, silahkan kirimkan terjemahannya ke yesusmanusia@gmail.com

Berikut tulisannya:

According to orthodox Trinitarian doctrine, if a person claims to be a Christian but does not believe in the Trinity, he is not saved. [1] Is that the truth? Not from the evidence in the Bible. In fact, the evidence in Scripture is that a person can be saved without even knowing about the Trinity. Before we discuss the issue further, however, we need to know the definition of the Trinity according to orthodox theologians. This is important because some Christians think they are Trinitarians simply because they believe in the Father, the Son, and a being called “the Holy Spirit.” But that is not the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity is that the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God, and together these “three Persons” make one God; and these three are co-equal and co-eternal, the Son having been “eternally begotten” of the Father, and Jesus being simultaneously 100% God and 100% man.

Menurut doktrin ortodox trinitas, jika seseorang mengaku kristen tetapi tidak percaya trinitas, dia tidak diselamatkan. Apakah hal itu benar ? Tidak, kalau melihat bukti yang ada didalam Bible. Faktanya, bukti di dalam kitab suci adalah bahwa seseorang dapat diselamatkan bahkan tanpa mengetahui tentang trinitas.

Sebelum kita mendiskusikan hal ini lebih lanjut, bagaimanapun juga, kita perlu tahu definisi trinitas menurut teologis ortodox. Hal ini penting karena sebagian kristiani berfikir bahwa mereka adalah trinitarian hanya karena mereka percaya Bapak, Anak, dan Roh Suci. Tapi itu bukan konsep trinitas.

Doktrin trinitas adalah bahwa Bapak adalah Tuhan, Anak adalah Tuhan dan Roh Suci adalah Tuhan, dan bersama-sama ketiga unsur tersebut membentuk satu Tuhan; dan ketiganya adalah sederajat dan sama-sama abadi, sang anak menjadi abadi dari Bapak, dan Yesus secara bersamaan adalah 100% Tuhan dan 100% manusia.

We of Spirit & Truth Fellowship International have encountered Trinitarians who say that a person will be saved if he believes that Jesus is both 100% God and 100% man, even if he does not believe the full doctrine of the Trinity. First, that is not the doctrinal position of the Orthodox Church, and second, the Bible never says that believing Jesus is both 100% God and 100% man is necessary for salvation. Non-Trinitarians assert that a person can be saved without believing in the Trinity, and demand, as did Martin Luther during the Reformation, that we be convinced from Scripture that what Trinitarians teach is true. Perhaps a good question to begin this study is, “When did God start requiring that a person believe in the Trinity to be saved?”

Kami dari Spirit & Truth Fellowship International sudah berhadapan dengan Trinitarian yang mengatakan bahwa seseorang akan diselamatkan jika percaya bahwa Yesus itu 100% Tuhan dan 100% manusia, sekalipun jika dia tidak percaya secara penuh, doktrin trinitas.

Pertama, bahwa itu bukan posisi doktrin Gereja Ortodoks, dan kedua, Bible tidak pernah mengatakan bahwa meyakini Yesus adalah 100% Tuhan dan sekaligus 100% manusia itu diperlukan untuk penyelamatan.

Non trinitarian menegaskan bahwa seseorang dapat diselamatkan tanpa meyakini trinitas dan menuntut, seperti yang dituntut Martin Luther selama Reformasi, bahwa kita diyakinkan dari kitab suci bahwa apa yang diajarkan trinitarian adalah benar.

Mungkin pertanyaan yang pas untuk memulai studi ini adalah : “Kapan Tuhan mengatur bahwa orang yang percaya pada trinitas akan diselamatkan ?

The Old Testament

The Old Testament does not teach the Trinity, or even set forth clearly that the Messiah would be God. Therefore it is unreasonable to think that someone back then had to believe it to be saved. [2] There is no evidence of anyone knowing about, or believing in, the Trinity in all the Jewish literature before Christ, including the Old Testament, the Jewish targums and commentaries, the Apocrypha or other apocryphal literature, or the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

It is well known that the foundational tenet of the Old Testament faith was, “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD” (Deut. 6:4 – KJV), and the Jews fiercely defended that faith against polytheism of all kinds. There are some singular verses that Trinitarians today say point to the doctrine of the Trinity underlying the revelation of the Old Testament, but none expound it clearly enough that anyone would have formulated the doctrine of a Triune God from them, and there is no historical record that anyone did (which is good evidence for the validity of our point that all those verses have a non-Trinitarian explanation).

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Trinitarian scholars are aware of the fact that the Old Testament does not teach the Trinity. The distinguished Trinitarian scholar Bertrand de Margerie writes:

“…contemporary exegetes [Bible teachers] affirm unanimously that the Old Testament did not bring to the Jewish people a clear and distinct Revelation of the existence of a plurality of persons in God. In this they agree with the clear and frequent affirmation of Fathers such as Irenaeus, Hilary, and Gregory of Nazianzus: that the doctrine of the Trinity is revealed only in the New Testament.” [3]

So Trinitarians admit that the Trinity is not revealed in the Old Testament, and thus both Trinitarians and non-Trinitarians agree that before Jesus’ ministry a person did not have to believe in the Trinity to be saved.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

The Four Gospels

We have seen that both Trinitarians and non-Trinitarians agree that a person living during the Old Testament did not have to believe in the Trinity to be saved because there was no presentation of the Trinity in the Old Testament for them to believe. However, Trinitarians hold that during the ministry of Jesus, and afterward, a person had to believe in the Trinity to be saved. This means that if Jesus or the Apostles wanted anyone to be saved, they had to teach the person more than was in the Old Testament. If Trinitarians are correct, we should see a clear presentation of the Trinity in Scripture, but we do not, nor is there any record that Jesus, or anyone else, ever taught the doctrine of the Trinity to anyone in order to get him saved.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

To know what people during the time of Jesus had to do to be saved, all we have to do is read the Gospels. Before we go any further, however, we should understand what the Jews at the time of Jesus were expecting in a Messiah. The Messiah the Old Testament portrayed was a human empowered by God. He would be from the line of Abraham (Gen. 22:18), from the tribe of Judah (Gen. 49:10), a descendant of David (2 Sam. 7:12 and 13), a Lord under Yahweh, the God of Israel (Ps. 110:1), [4] and he was to be one of their own people: “Their leader will be one of their own; their ruler will arise from among them…” (Jer. 30:21). Although they did understand these things about their Messiah, the first-century Jews were not expecting their Messiah to be born of a virgin, which is why the angel had to instruct Mary about it (Luke 1:34 and 35). Nor did they expect him to die (Matt. 16:21 and 22; John 12:32-34). They were correct, however, in that they were not expecting a God-man, a “Person” of the Godhead, a part of a Triune God.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

When it came to the first century Jews not expecting the Messiah to die, Jesus worked very hard to correct that misunderstanding, teaching over and over that he must die (Matt. 16:21, 17:9, 20:19 and 28, 26:2, 12 and 27-32). But there is not one single account of Jesus correcting anyone’s belief that he was a fully human Messiah. Never did he say he was part of the Trinity, or that a person had to believe in the Trinity to be saved. Furthermore, the first century Jews believed that “the Spirit of God” or “the Holy Spirit” was not a separate Person in the Trinity, but was another name for God, just as Yahweh, Elohim, or El Shaddai, were other names for the one true God. When Genesis 1:2 mentions “the Spirit of God,” Jews correctly believed it was another name for God or a reference to His invisible power at work. Yet there is no record of Jesus ever trying to “correct” them and show that the Holy Spirit was a third Person in the Trinity. That is very solid evidence that they did not have to believe in the Trinity to be saved.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

If Jesus had taught that a person had to believe in the Trinity to be saved, the perfect time for him to have done so would have been when a young man came to him and asked, “…Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?” (Matt. 19:16). If this young man had to believe in the Trinity to be saved, this was the time to say so. Instead, Jesus said, “…If you want to enter life, obey the commandments” (Matt. 19:17). Jesus further instructed the man that if he wanted to be “perfect” (which Mark 10:21 equates as having treasure in heaven) he should sell his worldly possessions and follow him (Matt. 19:21). Jesus never said to the man that belief in any aspect of the Trinity was necessary for salvation.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Another time Jesus could have easily taught the Trinity, or even that he was God, was when he traveled through Samaria, the district north of Jerusalem and south of Galilee. The Samaritans were not Jews, but foreigners who had been brought into the area and had adopted some parts of the Jewish religion. The Jews regarded them as horrible pagans and pretenders, and had nothing to do with them. When Jesus met the woman at the well in Samaria, she said she knew the Messiah was coming (John 4:25). However, her understanding of the Messiah would have come from the Old Testament and what her tradition taught, so when Jesus said, “…I who speak to you am he” (John 4:26), she never would have concluded that he was somehow God, or part of a Triune God. If she needed to believe that to be saved, Jesus would have taught it to her, as well as to the people from Samaria who came to meet him after the woman told them about him (John 4:41). However, there is no hint in Scripture he ever mentioned the Trinity. Did he ignore their need for salvation? Of course not. What is evident from this record is that a person did not have to believe in the Trinity to be saved.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Another example of a person being saved without believing in the Trinity is the immoral woman who anointed Jesus’ feet with her tears while he was eating. All Jesus said to her was, “…Your sins are forgiven” and “…Your faith has saved you; go in peace” (Luke 7:48 and 50). Are we to believe that somehow this Galilean Jewess knew that Jesus was part of a Triune God, and by knowing that she gained salvation? Such an assumption would be to stretch the record beyond credible limits. The woman was a sinner, not a theologian, and if she went to synagogue at all, which is questionable, she would have known about the Messiah only from what the Old Testament taught. There is no reason to believe that she somehow pasted together statements Jesus had made to build a case for the Trinity, and then believed it. She, like millions of Old Testament believers before her, was saved without believing in the Trinity.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Theologians build the doctrine of the Trinity with verses pulled from all over the Bible, but only a few actually spoken by Jesus can even be used to support it, and none of those mention “the Holy Spirit” in any decisive sense as being a distinct “Person.” [5] Furthermore, each statement Jesus made that modern Trinitarians use to paste together their case for a Trinity has an alternative, non-Trinitarian explanation. This is important, because although a person who already believes in the Trinity might think that what Jesus said supported the doctrine of the Trinity, someone who never heard of the Trinity would understand what Jesus said in a totally different way.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

A good example of this was when Jesus said, “…if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins” (John 8:24). Some Trinitarians see this statement as supporting the Trinity, but someone who did not know that doctrine would understand the statement in light of what he knew and believed, especially if what Jesus said made sense in terms of the beliefs he already held. In the case of John 8:24, the Jews he was speaking to were expecting a human Messiah and that people who rejected him would die in their sins. What Jesus said fit their understanding perfectly. Jesus had to have known that, so if he was trying to say that anyone who did not believe in the Trinity was unsaved, he did a poor job of making his point. He certainly never stated that if someone does not believe in the Trinity, he would die in his sins.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

If a person did need to believe in the Trinity to be saved, we would expect that Jesus would have been at least as aggressive in teaching that as he was about correcting other erroneous beliefs of his day. For example, we mentioned earlier that Jesus plainly taught his disciples that he had to die, even though they were not expecting it. He also corrected the Sadducees concerning the resurrection very plainly, telling them, “You are in error” (Matt. 22:29). Time after time he openly corrected the errors believed by the people around him. In the Sermon on the Mount he corrected many erroneous teachings, including the people’s misunderstanding about love, revenge, adultery, divorce, and anger, often saying, “You have heard that it was said…But I tell you…” (Matt. 5:21-44). But never in that important teaching that spans three entire chapters in Matthew does he correct their ideas about him being a real human being, or teach them about the Trinity, which he would have were it necessary to believe that to be saved. After all, which is the more important theological mistake, being wrong about anger, or taking an oath, or praying in public, or being wrong about the true nature of God?

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

If the Trinity were a true doctrine, and especially if a person has to believe it to be saved, we would have expected Jesus to say something in the Sermon on the Mount such as this:

“You have heard that it was said” that God is One, “but I tell you” that God is a Trinity, one God made of three distinct Persons. [6] “You have heard that it was said” that the Messiah will be one from among you, “but I tell you” he will be more than that, he will be God incarnated in human flesh. “You have heard that it was said” that the holy spirit is the invisible spirit power of God, “but I tell you” that Holy Spirit is much more than that, he is the third Person in a Triune Godhead.”

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Are we to believe that Jesus openly and plainly corrected errors in people’s understanding about many different issues while never correcting people’s erroneous thinking that he was the human Messiah they expected, and not a “Person” in a Triune God, especially if their error meant they were not saved? That makes no sense. He did not even correct his closest disciples about the Trinity. When Jesus asked Peter, “…Who do you say I am?” (Matt. 16:15), …Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God” (Matt. 16:16). Peter believed Jesus was the Christ he had been taught about in synagogue and was expecting, not God in the flesh who was part of the Trinity. Yet Jesus did not correct Peter, but instead complimented him on his insight, saying he was “Blessed” (Matt. 16:17).

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Jesus never taught the doctrine of the Trinity or told anyone he had to believe it to be saved. Furthermore, he never corrected anyone’s belief that he was the human Messiah they expected and not part of a Triune God. When he taught about himself from the Old Testament, as he did in Nazareth when he quoted from Isaiah (Luke 4:18 and 19), he never even hinted that there was more to believe about him than the Old Testament scriptures taught. Nor did he ever correct anyone’s understanding about the Holy Spirit. All this is conclusive evidence that Jesus did not teach that a person had to believe in the Trinity to be saved.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

The Book of Acts

The book of Acts records the teachings of the Apostles and disciples as they spread the good news of Jesus. It is reasonable that if the doctrine of the Trinity were a truth not revealed in the Old Testament but necessary for Christian salvation, it should be clearly taught in Acts. After all, many Trinitarians believe that for an unbelieving Jew or pagan Gentile to be saved, he must believe in the Trinity. The book of Acts, then, is a proving ground for what unbelievers need to know in order to be saved. So what do we see in Acts? In all the sermons in the book of Acts there is not one presentation of the Trinity.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

What Acts does record very clearly is that Jesus was a man, the servant of God, who was God’s anointed (“Messiah” in Hebrew, “Christ” in Greek), who died, whom God raised from the dead and exalted, and who will be the future King and Judge of all mankind. Furthermore, those who hear and believe that message get saved without hearing anything about the Trinity. Time after time Paul and others went into Jewish Synagogues and taught from the Old Testament about the Messiah, explaining that Jesus was the Messiah the Old Testament spoke of, and that teaching was enough to get people saved. There is not one record of Paul or others saying that what the Old Testament taught about the Messiah was not enough for salvation.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

What follows are summations of teachings in the book of Acts when believers preached the Word of God in order to get people saved. Almost every record listed below includes something that a speaker actually said to convince the audience about Jesus. If a record in Acts simply notes that someone such as Paul taught, but it does not record what he said, or if the purpose of the conversation was not about getting someone saved, the record is not included in the list below. Each will show that there was no presentation of the Trinity, or that believing it was necessary for salvation.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Acts 2:14-36. Peter spoke to the crowd of unsaved Jews in the Temple on the Day of Pentecost, just 50 days after Jesus was crucified. These Jews did not live in Israel, but had come to Jerusalem from the far reaches of the Roman Empire, including Parthia, Mesopotamia, Egypt, Libya, Rome, Crete, Arabia, and parts of what today is the nation of Turkey (Acts 2:9-11). They had not heard Jesus or the Apostles teach. All they knew about the Messiah was from the Old Testament and traditions about him, none of which included the doctrine of the Trinity or Jesus being God. Thus it is fair to conclude that if they needed to believe in the Trinity to be saved, someone would have to teach them about it. On Pentecost, however, Peter presented Jesus as a “man approved of God” who was crucified and whom God raised from the dead, much of which he backed up by quoting the Old Testament. Peter never mentioned the Trinity or Jesus being God, yet about three thousand people got saved that day. This is conclusive evidence that on the Day of Pentecost, the start of the Christian Church, a person did not have to believe in the Trinity to be saved.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Acts 3:12-26. Peter spoke to a crowd that had gathered in the Temple because a lame man had been miraculously healed. This crowd gathered inside the Temple, so they would have been Jews or interested Gentiles who were not saved. That means that they had either not heard, or had rejected, earlier presentations about Jesus being the Messiah, including the one taught close to the very spot where they were standing on the Day of Pentecost. [7] Peter taught these unsaved men and women that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob glorified “His servant Jesus.” He further taught that Jesus had died and God had raised him from the dead. He also quoted Deuteronomy 18:15, that Christ was to be “a prophet like me [Moses].” There was nothing in Peter’s teaching about the Trinity or Jesus being God, and yet so many people were saved that the number of Christians in Jerusalem grew to 5,000 men, not counting the women and children (Acts 4:4).

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Acts 4:8-12. Peter spoke to the Jewish rulers and elders, and taught that although they had crucified Jesus of Nazareth, God raised Him from the dead. He did not make any presentation of the Trinity or Jesus being God. These were mostly the same men who were at Jesus’ trials, and there is no record in Scripture that any of them believed what Peter said and got saved.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Acts 5:29-32. Peter and the Apostles were again brought before the Jewish rulers, and Peter again presented to them that although the Jews had killed Jesus, God had raised Him from the dead and set him at his right hand as “Prince and Savior” (Acts 5:31). Nothing Peter said referred to a Trinity of co-equal, co-eternal beings in a Godhead. The vocabulary of “God” raising up Jesus and setting him at His right hand fit exactly with what these leaders already believed about the Messiah from the Old Testament, because Peter spoke of two separate beings, a ruler (God) and His “right hand man” (Jesus), not one Being in three persons. This is confirmed by the fact that Jesus is then referred to as the “Prince,” not “God.” As when Peter was before the rulers earlier, there is no record that any of them got saved, but if they had believed Peter, they would have been saved without knowing anything of the doctrine of the Trinity.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Acts 7:2-53. Stephen made a presentation to the Jewish rulers, and gave a history of Israel. Like Peter had done (Acts 3:22), he quoted Deuteronomy 18:15 that the Messiah would be a prophet from among the people. He asserted that they had killed the “Righteous One,” and then spoke about the vision he had that Jesus was at the right hand of God, something the Jews would have clearly understood to mean that Jesus was now God’s second in command. Stephen was trying to win the Jews to the Christian faith, and he did so without mentioning the Trinity or that Jesus was God. Furthermore, no one in his audience would have ever thought that Jesus was “co-equal” to the Father when Stephen spoke of him being raised by God and now at God’s right hand.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Acts 8:30-39. Philip the Evangelist was told by an angel to meet, and speak with, a eunuch from Ethiopia, which he did. The Ethiopian was reading from the book of Isaiah, and Philip began there and told him the Good News about Jesus. The eunuch believed and was baptized with no hint that Philip tried to teach him about the Trinity or that Jesus was God. Actually, if you think about it, how could Philip have presented the Trinity? All the Ethiopian had were scriptures from the Old Testament. How would he have reacted if Philip had said, “Well, we know the Hebrew Scriptures present Jesus as a Messiah from the line of David, but actually he was God incarnate, 100% man and 100% God, and you have to believe that to be saved”? Because the Old Testament never said the Messiah would be a God-man, the eunuch would have dismissed Philip as being very misguided in contradicting the Scriptures. What we learn from the record of Philip and the eunuch is that the eunuch got saved without ever knowing about the Trinity.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Acts 9:3-6, 17 and 20. The Apostle Paul became a Christian when the Lord Jesus himself appeared to him on the road to Damascus. Paul was a trained Rabbi and was expecting the Messiah, but he had resisted the Christian teaching that Jesus was that Messiah. Meeting Jesus proved that Jesus was the Messiah he had been expecting, but there is nothing Jesus, or Ananias who prayed for Saul, said about the Trinity or Jesus being God, so there is no reason to believe Saul had to believe it to be saved. Furthermore, immediately after being saved, Paul went into the Synagogue and taught. Like all new converts, Saul would have been very enthusiastic about his new beliefs, but there is no mention that he mentioned the Trinity. Instead, he taught what he himself had just come to know, that Jesus was “the Son of God.”

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Acts 10:34-43. At the house of Cornelius in Caesarea, Peter taught the Gentiles gathered there that Jesus died, but God raised him from the dead. He taught how God had anointed Jesus with holy spirit (there is no article “the” in the Greek text), made him Lord, and appointed him as Judge. He did not mention the Trinity or say that Jesus was God, but the Gentiles who listened to Peter were saved and filled with the power of holy spirit right in the middle of his teaching.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Acts 13:16-41. Paul spoke in a synagogue in Antioch of Pisidia, a Roman province in what today is the country of Turkey. He addressed the Jews and God-fearing Gentiles who were gathered there, and taught a very effective salvation message. He gave a short history of the Jews, showing that Jesus, a descendant of David, was the Savior, crucified by the Jews, raised from the dead by God, and that he showed himself alive to many of his disciples who testify about him. He further taught that God now offers forgiveness of sins through him. Many people were saved. There is no mention that Paul taught any of the concepts of the modern Trinity, such as that Jesus was God, or incarnated, or co-equal with the Father.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Acts 15:1-29. In this record, a dispute arose between Paul and members of the Pharisees who claimed circumcision and observance of the Law was necessary for salvation. A council at Jerusalem was convened specifically for the purpose of discussing what was necessary for the Gentiles to be saved—Gentiles whose belief system had no conception of a Trinity. The decision of the council was to “…not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God” (15:19) and “…not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements” (15:28), which were to abstain from food offered to idols, blood, strangled animals, and sexual immorality. Neither the doctrine of the Trinity nor the divinity of Christ was mentioned as necessary for salvation.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Acts 16:30 and 31. Paul and Silas were put in jail in Philippi and were miraculously released when an earthquake hit the area. The jailor asked, “…Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” This is a very important question for this study, because if someone must believe in the Trinity to be saved, Paul should have said something about it. Instead, Paul responded, “…Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.”

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Acts 17:1-4. In this record, Paul arrived in Thessalonica, went into the synagogue, and “…reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead. ‘This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Christ…’” (Acts 17:2-4). Paul taught from the Scriptures, which in a synagogue at that time were only the Old Testament. Thus, Paul could not have mentioned anything about the Trinity, which, as we have seen, was not in the Old Testament. Instead, Paul showed that the Messiah had to suffer, die, and rise from the dead, all easily shown from the Old Testament, and then he made the case that Jesus was the Messiah. The result was that some of the Jews were won to the faith, along with a “large number” of Gentiles, including a number of the prominent women of the city. There was no mention of the Trinity, yet many were saved.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Acts 17:10-13. Paul and Silas traveled from Thessalonica to Berea, went into the Synagogue, and spoke to the Jews. This is a very important record for our study because it specifically states that the Jews of Berea were more noble than the Jews of Thessalonica because they searched their Scriptures, the Old Testament, to see if what Paul and Silas were saying was true. However, we have already seen that the Trinity is not in the Old Testament, so what the people of Berea would have seen was that Jesus fulfilled the Messianic prophecies, believed he was the Messiah, and gotten saved. They would not have seen that Jesus was one Person in a Triune God.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Acts 17:22-31. Paul went to Athens and spoke to the Greeks. He taught the resurrection and lordship of Christ and said: “For he [God] has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed….” Paul said God proved His point by raising Christ from the dead. Paul’s short message was effective, because there were a few men who believed. They got saved without ever hearing anything about the Trinity.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Acts 18:1-5. Paul went to Corinth, and as in many other cities, went into the synagogue to speak about the Lord Jesus. Scripture is clear that Paul was “…testifying to the Jews that Jesus was the Christ” (Acts 18:5), and there is no mention that he taught the Trinity.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Acts 18:24-28. Apollos was an eloquent man who knew the Scriptures. He also had been given instruction by Aquila and Priscilla, who themselves had been personally taught by Paul. He helped the believers by publicly showing from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ, something he would have shown from the Old Testament. There is no mention of any aspect of the Trinity.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Acts 22:3-21. Paul spoke to a crowd at the Temple in Jerusalem. His testimony was cut short, but nothing he said even hinted at the doctrine of the Trinity. He spoke of “God” (not “the Father”) and the Righteous One (the Messiah), which would have agreed with what the Jews believed from the Old Testament, that there was one God, and His Messiah, not that the Messiah was somehow also God.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Acts 25:13-21. Governor Festus was speaking with King Agrippa. This is a very important record for our study, because neither of the two men was saved. Festus was relating to Agrippa what Paul had said to him, and why the Jews were angry at Paul. Festus says that Paul is disputing with the Jews about “…a dead man named Jesus who Paul claimed was alive.” Festus did not believe what Paul said, but he understood that Paul was saying Jesus had been raised from the dead. This record conforms completely to the other places in Acts that record what Paul taught about Jesus, which was that he died on the Cross, but God raised him from the dead. The evidence from this record is clearly that Paul was not teaching the Trinity, which would have been so different from what Festus had ever heard that he surely would have mentioned it to King Agrippa.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Acts 26:2-23. Paul told King Agrippa that Jesus of Nazareth was raised from the dead and proclaimed as a light to “…his own people and to the Gentiles.” Paul was trying to get King Agrippa saved, and pressed him to believe, saying, “King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know you do” (Acts 26:27). Agrippa realized Paul was trying to get him to be a Christian, and responded, “…Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?” (Acts 26:28). Agrippa could have become a Christian that very day had he believed Paul’s message, yet Paul never mentioned the Trinity, a pre-existent Christ, or that Jesus was God. Anything foreign to the Old Testament such as that would only have confused King Agrippa. Paul’s message of salvation came from “the prophets,” who did not mention the Trinity.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Acts 28:23. In this short but powerful record that closes the book of Acts, Paul is trying to convince the Jews of Rome “about Jesus” from the Law and the Prophets, which we know do not present the Trinity. Had Paul tried to convince those Jews that Jesus was both man and God using the Old Testament, they would have considered him out of his mind. What we need to pay close attention to is that a person could be saved by believing only that Jesus of Nazareth was the one who fulfilled those things that the Old Testament clearly taught about the Messiah: that he would suffer and die, be raised from the dead and be exalted to second in command under God Himself.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Paul and the Jews in Acts

There is another way that Acts reveals Paul was not teaching the Trinity: The Jews and even some Jewish Christians who still followed the Mosaic Law constantly harassed the Apostle Paul. In some cases they even followed him from city to city and stirred up the people against him (Acts 17:13). When Paul was in Jerusalem, James told him about all the Jewish Christians who were still zealous for the Law (Acts 21:20), and when Paul was in the Temple, Jews who knew him shouted, “…Men of Israel, help us! This is the man who teaches all men everywhere against our people and our law and this place…” (Acts 21:28). The Jews accosted Paul about all kinds of issues, including differences about the Law, circumcision, and Jesus being the Messiah, but they never once accused him of going against their monotheistic teaching and speaking about a Triune God.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Anyone who has studied the history of the Jewish nation under Greek and Roman domination knows that the Jews were so fiercely monotheistic that there had been riots and rebellions over the issue of idols, and even the Roman eagle, in Israel. Had Paul been teaching that their God was not one God, but a part of a Trinity, that surely would have aroused their anger and come up as an issue in the book of Acts. After all, it would have been at least as important as circumcision, which comes up in both Acts and the Epistles. The fact that at no time in Acts or the Epistles is there any Jewish opposition to the Trinity is very good evidence that it was not being taught by early Christians and was not essential to salvation.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Conclusion from Acts

After reading and studying the entire book of Acts and looking for evidence about how a person gets saved, we must conclude that no one had to believe in the Trinity. Furthermore, Acts is the record of the rise and expansion of the Christian Church, so what holds true in Acts should be true for the entire Church Age.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Romans through Revelation: The Rest of the New Testament

We have now seen that a person did not have to believe in the Trinity to be saved during the Old Testament times, and we have also seen from the Four Gospels and Acts that people got saved without believing in the Trinity or even that Jesus was both God and man. In studying the Epistles we see more of the same; that there is no clear expression of the doctrine of the Trinity from Romans through Revelation, and no evidence anyone had to believe it to be saved. God’s plan of salvation through faith in Christ is presented many times without a single verse saying a person has to believe in the Trinity to be saved.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Scholars freely admit that the Trinity is never presented as a complete doctrine in the New Testament, but rather is built from scattered verses. The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology states, “In the NT there is no explicit statement of the doctrine….” [8] The New Bible Dictionary says: “…it is not a Biblical doctrine in the sense that any formulation of it can be found in the Bible….” [9] The Holman Bible Dictionary is very clear: “The New Testament does not present a systematic presentation of the Trinity. The scattered segments from various writers that appear throughout the New Testament reflect a seemingly accepted understanding that exists without a full-length discussion.” [10] Theologians admit that the New Testament does not state what the Trinity is, i.e., that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three co-equal, co-eternal “Persons,” together making one God, and that Jesus is both 100% God and 100% man. Furthermore, there is no clear teaching that a person must believe in the Trinity to be saved.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

If a person had to believe in the Trinity to be saved, we would expect to find that clearly stated in the book of Romans. Theologians commonly teach that the theme of Romans is God’s plan of salvation. Some assert that the theme is justification by faith, and that certainly is a major aspect of the Epistle, but the NIV Study Bible well states what is generally thought of as the major theme of Romans: “…Paul’s primary theme in Romans is the basic gospel, God’s plan of salvation, and righteousness for all mankind, Jew and Gentile alike (1:16 and 17).” [11]

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

We agree with orthodox theologians that the plan of salvation and righteousness for all mankind is the theme of Romans, but it never presents the doctrine of the Trinity or states that a person has to believe Jesus is God to be saved. Could it be that the one book in the New Testament whose theme is salvation never clearly teaches how to get saved? The answer to that question is an obvious “No.”

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Romans 10:9 is perhaps the clearest presentation of how to get saved in the Epistles:

Romans 10:9
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 instruction does not require one to even know about, much less believe, the Trinity in order to get saved. However, according to orthodox Trinitarian doctrine, simply obeying the above verse will not get a person saved, because to be saved he must believe that Jesus is not just “Lord,” but “God,” 100% man and 100% God, and co-equal and co-eternal with the Father.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

It is safe to say that Paul penned the book of Romans to the people in Rome in the confidence that if they believed and acted on what they read, especially Romans 10:9, they would be saved. It is also safe to say that Paul knew that Rome was filled with Jews who had only the Old Testament and traditions about the Messiah to rely on, and Gentiles who knew nothing about the Jewish Messiah at all. It is also important for us to remember that the first century Jews and Gentiles would have thought about Jesus being “Lord” in terms of their culture. Although modern Trinitarians assert that in the context of Romans, “Lord,” means “God,” no Roman Jew or Gentile in the first century would have believed that. “Lord” was a term for boss, owner, husband, or ruler. The Romans had many “lords,” and they were not “God.” Without clearer instruction on the matter, no Roman would have read “Lord” and thought it meant “God, the creator,” especially since Romans 10:9 also says “God” raised this “Lord” from the dead. A simple and straightforward reading of the verse presents two beings: God and the Lord Jesus, whom God raised from the dead. There is no Trinity, and no mention that the God and the Lord in the verse are both parts of the same Triune God, and that a third “Person” in the Trinity is missing from the verse.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Could it truly be that a non-Christian could read the book of Romans, believe its message, and not be saved? We say, “No.” The book of Romans clearly shows that Jesus was the Messiah, that he died for the sins of mankind, and that God raised him from the dead, and anyone who believes it is saved. There is just no logical way to read Romans, knowing that it was addressed to the first century people in Rome to get them saved, and say that they would have to believe in the Trinity to be saved.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Perhaps the next best book after Romans to study to see if a person must believe in the Trinity to be saved is Hebrews. The content of Hebrews tells us that it was addressed to Jews (or Jewish Christians) who were intimately familiar with the Old Testament. Every chapter is packed with Old Testament references, and there is much discussion about the Law. Hebrews teaches that obeying the Law will not get people saved, but what will is faith in Jesus, the one who died for our sins and is now our living High Priest, elevated even higher than angels.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

The Jews fiercely held to the Law, which was given by Moses. To persuade them to let it go and move on to something else, God would have to offer something “better,” and that is a major theme in Hebrews. [12] Hebrews teaches that God has done something in Jesus that is “better” than what He had done in the Law. [13] Jesus is specifically said to be better than angels (1:4); he brings a better hope (7:19); guarantees and mediates a better covenant that is founded on better promises (7:22, 8:6); is a better sacrifice than those offered under the Law (9:23); reminds people of better possessions in the future, including a better future country (10:34, 11:16); offers a better resurrection (11:35), brings something better for us than the Old Testament believers had (11:40); and his blood speaks better than the blood of Abel’s sacrifice (12:24). Hebrews also shows (without specifically using the word “better”) that Jesus was a greater High Priest than Aaron (4:14-5:10) and ministers in a better sanctuary (9:11-14).

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Clearly, the book of Hebrews is trying to get people saved or to understand their salvation, and change their attitude toward the Law. It follows the pattern for salvation that we see in Acts and Romans in that it shows that Jesus died for the sins of the people, was raised by God, and is Lord. It never says that believing the Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah is not enough to get someone saved, never says the prophecies about the Messiah were telling only a part-truth about God and the Messiah, never presents the doctrine of the Trinity, and certainly never states that a person has to believe in the Trinity to be saved. [14]

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

In conclusion, without addressing each epistle in the New Testament, it is enough to say that they set forth the same plan of salvation as Acts, and never teach that a person must believe in the Trinity to be saved. If the book of Acts and the New Testament Epistles, the very foundation of the Christian Church, do not say that a person must believe in the Trinity to be saved, then Christians should take that as the true doctrine of the Church and not insist that a person has to believe in the Trinity to be saved.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

The Creeds of Christendom: The Doctrine Develops

We can see the developing and increasing influence of the doctrine of the Trinity in the increasing complexity of the creeds of Christendom, and the clarity with which they promote the Trinity. A creed is a formal and fundamental statement that clarifies a position, and determines who is “in” and who is “out” of the community defined by the creed. It is a type of statement of beliefs. The creeds are important because their content reveals what issues were being debated at the time the creed was written. For example, if a creed mentions baptism, that was important to the group. If it does not, then likely baptism was a non-issue, either because everyone agreed about it without debate, or because it was not important to the group.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

One of the earliest creeds in Christendom is the well-known Apostles’ Creed. Its date is not known, but we assume from its simple structure and content that it pre-dated the theological debates that raged in the fourth century. The later creeds are much more complex and specifically address the issues of their time. The Apostles’ Creed does not mention the Trinity or any fundamental part of the doctrine of the Trinity, such as Jesus or the Holy Spirit being God. Christians who confess the Apostles’ Creed believe that Jesus is the Son of God and the Lord, who died and whom God raised from the dead, much like the teachings we find in the book of Acts. It seems conclusive that the authors of the Apostles’ Creed did not consider belief in the Trinity necessary for salvation.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

The Nicene Creed was developed in the fourth century, likely in 381 by the Council of Constantinople, and by that time much of the Trinitarian doctrine was more clearly developed. It states that the Son was “eternally begotten” and one Being with the Father. It also mentions that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are to be worshipped and glorified. Despite the clear Trinitarian doctrine of the Nicene Creed, it does not state that a person must believe in the Trinity to be saved. This makes sense in light of the time period in which it was written. At that time many people in the church believed in the Trinity, but many did not. Although many Christians have heard of Emperor Constantine, who presided over the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. and was a Trinitarian, most people are not aware that his son Constantius, who was the Roman emperor after him (337 to 361), was not a Trinitarian, and actually was known to persecute Trinitarian bishops. The point is that the doctrine of the Trinity was not settled in the Church yet, so it makes sense that a creed published in the late 300s would include the doctrine of the Trinity but not demand that one had to believe it to be saved.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

By the time the Athanasian Creed was written, likely in the late fifth or early sixth century, more than a hundred years after the Nicene Creed, the situation in Christendom had changed. Trinitarians had become firmly in control of the Church, and non-Trinitarians were routinely persecuted, which is why, looking backward through history, there seemed to be so few of them during the Middle Ages. In contrast to the earlier creeds, the Athanasian Creed plainly states that a person had to be a Trinitarian to be saved. It was written in Latin, so English translations of it differ slightly, but it clearly reflects the conflict going on in the Church during the fourth and fifth centuries about the formulation of, and belief in, the Trinity. We know that because the one subject it covers in great detail is the Trinity, and how its members relate to each other. The Athanasian Creed clearly states that a person who does not believe in the Trinity, or the incarnation of Jesus, or that Jesus is both God and man, is not saved, and this man-made document expressed what became the uncompromising teaching of the Orthodox Church.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

The Athanasian Creed, and pronouncements similar to it, proliferated through the Middle Ages and were maintained by the Roman Catholic Church, and then by the Protestant Church. Although there was a great resurgence of non-Trinitarian believers at the time of the Reformation, they were persecuted and even put to death by both Roman Catholics and Protestants. Many of their writings were burned, but thankfully a few survived and are available today, giving us a window into non-Trinitarian thought during the Reformation.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

The constant persecution of non-Trinitarians resulted in their becoming a miniscule minority through the Middle Ages and Reformation, and in the modern church, something that most churchgoers greatly misinterpret. Most people believe there are so few non-Trinitarian believers because their doctrinal position is weak, but that is drawing the wrong conclusion. The truth is that most who openly shared their faith were killed or persecuted, or were told the Trinity was a mystery they could not understand, and so the vast majority of them learned to be quiet about what they believed. The persecution of non-Trinitarians continues today, and the vast majority of them keep their beliefs to themselves so they will not be ejected from Christian meetings, called “unsaved” (or worse), and rejected by other Christians they have befriended.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

The Modern Church

The Sinner’s Prayer

Like the Medieval Church doctrine, the modern Orthodox Church doctrine is that a person must believe in the Trinity to be saved, but on a practical level there is some serious double-mindedness going on in the Church. This is true, first when it comes to evangelism and winning new converts, and second, in assuring that long-time Christians believe in the Trinity and are actually saved.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

When it comes to evangelism, Trinitarian evangelists and pastors teach the salvation message in a simple way, just as was done in Acts, and believe their teaching saves people. For example, Trinitarians all over the world say they get people saved by having them pray what is referred to as “the sinner’s prayer.” Although it varies somewhat from church to church, it goes something like this:

“Heavenly Father: I come to you in prayer asking for the forgiveness of my sins. I confess with my mouth and believe with my heart that Jesus is your Son, and that he died on the Cross at Calvary that I might be forgiven and have Eternal Life in the Kingdom of Heaven. Father, I believe that Jesus rose from the dead and I ask you right now to come in to my life and be my personal Lord and Savior. I repent of my sins and will Worship you all the day’s of my Life. Because your word is truth, I confess with my mouth that I am Born Again and Cleansed by the Blood of Jesus! In Jesus’ Name, Amen.” [15]

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

This prayer clearly shows the double-mindedness of Trinitarians because thousands of them use it to get people saved in their churches, while at the same time their doctrine says it will not get someone saved because it does not teach the Trinity. We non-Trinitarians say that based on the teaching of the New Testament, anyone who prayed and believed the above prayer is saved. We say that this practice of the Trinitarians is correct, and it is their doctrine that is in error.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

The second evidence for double-mindedness among Trinitarians concerns long-time members of the Church who do not believe the Trinity because they either do not know what it is, or they do not understand it and thus do not really “believe it,” they just more or less ignore the whole doctrinal position. Spirit & Truth Fellowship International is openly non-Trinitarian, and we have been in many discussions and debates with Trinitarians since our inception in 1989. Our experience is that a significant percentage of those who attend Trinitarian churches openly confess that they do not know what the Trinity is, or when questioned, cannot define it accurately. In our experience, many churchgoers think the Trinity is simply that there are three beings, the Father God, the Son, and a being called “the Holy Spirit.”

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Many of the supposed Trinitarians we have encountered do not even believe that Jesus is God, much less that he is one of three Persons in the Trinity, all of whom are co-equal and co-eternal and who together make up the One God of Christian orthodoxy. If orthodox Trinitarian doctrine is correct, imagine the sad plight of these churchgoers on the Day of Judgment. They would stand before the Judgment Seat, expecting to live forever with Jesus because they believe God raised him from the dead and have confessed him as Lord. But instead of being granted everlasting life, the Righteous Judge condemns them to everlasting death, saying they were not really saved because they did not believe in the Trinity.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

We assert that if the pastors of local churches really believed that a person had to believe in the Trinity to have everlasting life, they would teach it in great detail; regularly have sermons, classes and seminars on it; make sure that all the elders and deacons were well versed about it; and sit with new converts and any new members of their church to confirm that the person was actually saved. The actions of Trinitarian churches around the globe are speaking louder than their manual of doctrine. It seems clear that, in reality, leaders in the modern church do not really think a person has to believe in the Trinity to be saved.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

We of Spirit & Truth Fellowship International have encountered a number of people in the Church today, including pastors, who believe that the Trinity is true but admit that it is not clearly presented in the Bible, and thus say that one need not believe it to be saved. These Trinitarian Christians have seen that there is no command to believe in the Trinity, and admit non-Trinitarian believers into their churches and fellowships as brothers and sisters in Christ.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

The Manifestations (or “Gifts”) of the Spirit and Salvation

The modern Church is waking up to the spiritual power Christians have, and many in different denominations are manifesting the power of God by speaking in tongues, prophecy, words [messages] of knowledge and wisdom, and healing. More and more Christians are seeing that the verse, “I would like every one of you to speak in tongues…” (1 Cor. 14:5), is for all Christians. Although speaking in tongues used to be considered something done only by Pentecostals and Charismatics, now people from very diverse denominations and groups are speaking in tongues, even in the Roman Catholic Church (these are referred to as “Charismatic Catholics”).

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

It is widely admitted that the power to speak in tongues comes from God to those who are saved. Speaking in tongues, then, should be one of the great proofs of who is, and who is not saved, and if non-Trinitarians are not saved, they should not be able to speak in tongues. But many non-Trinitarian groups have members who do speak in tongues. In fact, Trinitarian and non-Trinitarian groups are similar when it comes to speaking in tongues, because some do and some do not. However, if speaking in tongues is an evidence of the presence of the spirit, and thus salvation, which we assert that it is, the fact that people who have accepted Jesus as their Lord, but who are non-Trinitarians speak in tongues is very solid evidence they are saved.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Conclusion

Most Christians assert that the Bible teaches the way of salvation. However, if orthodox Trinitarian doctrine is correct, the Bible does not clearly teach how to be saved because it never clearly teaches the Trinity. Could it be that we have to teach a “more complete” message to get people saved than did Jesus, Peter, or Paul? Could it really be the case that a person must believe in the Trinity to be saved, even though there is not one clear presentation of it in the entire New Testament? Certainly not. We assert that the message of Peter, Paul, and others was enough to get their audiences saved and there is no evidence that God, after the book of Acts, somehow changed the rules so that now a person must believe in the Trinity to be saved.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

The book of Acts makes it clear that when the early Christians presented Jesus Christ to the unsaved, they taught that he was a “man approved of God” who was crucified but whom God raised from the dead and who now is our Lord. This simple message has been getting people saved for some 2000 years now, and there is no evidence in Scripture or in the practices of churches around the world that one has to believe in the Trinity to be saved. We reject the decision made by men in the Church, somewhere around 500 A.D., that a person must believe in the Trinity to be saved, even though that decision and belief has been supported by Church tradition for centuries now. It is the Word of God, not tradition, that lives and abides forever.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Like the great reformers of the Protestant Reformation, who demanded to be convinced from Scripture that a doctrine is true, we demand that Trinitarians show us from Scripture that a person needs to believe in the Trinity to be saved. If they cannot do so, we respectfully submit that they retract this doctrine. Christians will never be able to achieve what our God wishes, that “…we all reach unity in the faith…” (Eph. 4:13), until Trinitarians stop demanding that to be considered Christian a person must believe something that cannot be proven from the Bible. It would be a wonderful thing if Trinitarians would draw their doctrine as well as their practice from the Word of God and welcome non-Trinitarian Christians as part of the family of God.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Epilogue

In the above study we have shown from Scripture that a person does not have to believe in the Trinity to be saved. However, there is another point we feel compelled to make. If the Old Testament does not teach the Trinity, if Jesus never taught it, if no one in the book of Acts ever taught it, and if the Epistles do not clearly set it forth, can it really be that the Trinity is right doctrine? Can it be that the very foundation of the Christian faith is a doctrine that is never once set forth clearly in Scripture, but is gathered from isolated texts? God very clearly sets forth the foundational tenets of the Christian faith, including salvation, redemption, righteousness, the character of God (that He is love, light, merciful, etc.), the fallen nature of man and the need for a Savior, and the work of the Messiah. Which makes more sense, that God is clear about the foundational tenets of the Christian faith except the most important one, the Trinity, which must be gathered from isolated texts, or that the Trinity is actually a man-made doctrine, built from verses that can each be explained in a non-Trinitarian way? To us, the answer to that question is clear.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Going strictly by the evidence in Scripture, the correct biblical doctrine is the one that can be clearly seen in the Old Testament and was confirmed again and again in the New Testament. There is one God. He is spirit, so His invisible power and nature are known as the holy spirit (or the Holy Spirit). God had a Son, the Messiah, who we know as the Lord Jesus Christ, who was of the lineage of Abraham and David, born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, died for our sins, was raised from the dead, and ascended to the right hand of God. All of this was taught in the Old Testament and confirmed many times in the New Testament without once being corrected to include the idea of a Triune God. There is no reason not to believe that simple message is the correct biblical doctrine.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

[For further study, please read our article titled What About John 1:1?, and our explanation of verses commonly used to try to support the Trinity.]

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Nu när Lissabonfördraget har skrivits på så kan vi inom blott några få veckor få en alldeles egen president – precis som man har i USA. Hur har detta kunnat ske? Har vi alla röstat om saken? Har vi till att börja med röstat om vi vill ha en president? (som då står över vår egen statsminister) Har vi sedan fått om rösta fram den president vi vill ha? Som vi alla vet så har vi inte fått rösta om någonting vad gäller dessa viktiga frågor. Vi bör därför fråga oss själva vad för typ av samhälle vi lever i? För vad detta nu handlar om är definitivt inte demokrati. Vi ställs nu istället inför ett faktum – ett olustigt faktum tom.

Sedan flera år tillbaka har det tisslats och tasslats om att en viss Tony Blair var påtänkt som EU-president, och nu vet vi att detta inte var ett rykte utan grund. I England så har hans gamla vapendragare från oppositionen nu börjat uttala sig om saken, och som vanligt i lägen som dessa så är man inte särskilt positiva när det gäller Blair. För sådan är politiken – ett enda stort lurendrejeri. Och ingen politiker idag är väl en större lurendrejare än just Tony Blair. Hans omfattande lögner drog ju med hela Storbrittannien i två orättfärdiga krig i Irak resp Afghanistan, men en miljon döda som påföljd. Och denna bandit ska vi nu kanske få till president - utan att vi ens får rösta om saken!

Det hela är naturligtvis inget annat än en kupp, inte olik den när Hitler tog makten. Hitler vann dock ett val, men nu så anses det att inte ens ett val behövs. Och detta beror väl på att ingen bryr sig ändå, eftersom vi alla mer eller mindre inget annat är än neddummade fåntrattar som älskar dem som bedrar oss. Redan när Blair konverterade till katolicismen för några år sedan så började folk inse att hans politiska karriär inte var över och att något stort var planerat för honom framöver. Att han sedan lånar/hyr ett av Rotschildfamiljens privata jetplan har väl inget med saken att göra? Nej säkert inte?Men att han har mäktiga vänner/sponsorer/arbetgivare råder det inget tvivel om.

Så Blair är nu katolik. En annan katolik och politiker som drivs av maktbegär är Arnold Schwarzenegger. Han är nuförtiden som bekant Kaliforniens guvernör. Han kan dock inte bli president “over there”, då han inte är född “over there”. Han kan dock mycket väl bli president “over here” en vacker dag. Han har ju som bekant öppet hyllat Hitler och har då genast flera fina kvaliteter som kan komma att behövas som Europas framtida führer. Någon kanske tror att jag skojar här. Kom då ihåg att alla trodde att Schwarzeneggers deltagande i valen i Kalifornien var ett skämt. Och som någon sa efter hans valseger: “It was a joke that became true.”

West Java.: Christians have won a court battle restoring the right to worship in their building in Depok

http://www.charisma mag.com/index. php/news/ 23489-indonesia- church-wins- legal-battle- to-worship- in-building

Christians have won a court battle restoring the right to worship in
their building in Depok City, West Java.

Depok Mayor Nur Mahmudi Ismail on March 27 had revoked the building
permit for a multipurpose building and house of worship for Gereja
Huria Kristen Batak Protestan (HKBP) church following protests by
Muslims. A court in Bandung on Sept. 17 rescinded the order that
revoked the church building permit, paving the way for congregants to
resume worship there.

Head Judge A. Syaifullah read the decision of the three-judge panel,
which found the mayor’s reasoning for canceling the building permit
inadequate. The mayor had said that most people living near the church
objected to its building in Jalan Pesanggrahan IV, Cinere Area of
Depok City.

“These objections by the local residents should have been raised when
the building permit was going through the approval process, not
protesting afterwards,” said Syaifullah.

Syaifullah added that the mayor also should have taken the views of
church members into consideration.

“In this case, the revocation of the building permit was based upon
the objections of one group in the community without considering those
from the church,” he said.

Construction of the church building had begun in 1998, shortly after
the permit was issued, but halted soon afterward due to a lack of
funds.
When the project began anew in 2007, members of a Muslim group from
the Cinere Area of Depok City and neighboring villages damaged the
boundary hedge and posted protest banners on the walls of the
building. Most of the protestors were not local residents.

The court determined that lawyers for the church successfully
demonstrated that church leaders had followed all Depok City
procedures for the building permit. Betty Sitompul, vice-chair of the
HKBP church building committee, stated that the church court win was a
victory for all Christians.

“We won because we had followed all the procedures and had completed
all the required documents,” she said.

In early June the church had filed suit against the mayor’s action in
a provincial court in Bandung, with church lawyer Junimart Girsang
arguing that the mayor’s revocation of the permit was wrong.

Girsang said that the court had finally sided with justice for all Indonesians.

“The judges made the right decision and had no choice, because all of
the papers for the permit were done properly,” he said.

The church had been meeting in a naval facility located about five
kilometers (nearly three miles) from the church building since the
permit was revoked, causing great inconvenience for church members,
many of whom did not have their own transportation.

In South Sumatra Province, another HKBP church outside the provincial
capital city of Palembang is trying to overcome objections by Muslim
protestors in order to complete construction of its building in Plaju.

Church leaders acknowledge they had not finished the application
process for a permit before beginning construction. They said they
went forward because after they applied to the mayor of Palembang, he
told them to talk with the governor of South Sumatra. After talking
with Gov. Alex Noerdin and securing his approval on Feb. 10, church
leaders began construction on a donated plot of 1,500 square meters
only to face a demonstration by members of several Muslim
organizations on June 27.

The South Sumatra Muslim Forum (FUI Sumsel) organized the
demonstration. Carrying a copy of a mayoral decree dated May 2009
ordering a halt to construction, the protestors gathered outside the
building site, listened to speeches and then destroyed a bridge
leading to it before demanding that the government ban the building
project.

Applications for church permits are often fraught with difficulty in
Indonesia, leaving many congregations no choice but to worship in
private homes, hotels or rented conference facilities. Such gatherings
leave churches open to threats and intimidation from activist groups
such as the Front Pembela Islam (Islamic Defenders Front), in recent
years responsible for the closure of many unregistered churches.

———— -