Posted on 06/24/2014 2:13:28 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Why don't you explain what you think "my" version of the gospel is???
It certainly is...It is imputed to everyone, believers or not...Here's a description:
Tit 3:4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, (and this did not start with Moses since works of righteousness was in play up until the Crucifixion and the transformation is spoken of in Romans 3)
Tit 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; (and there's not a drop of water in that 'washing')
Tit 3:6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
Tit 3:7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
Rom 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
Rom 3:21 But now (something big changed) the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
Rom 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; (the believers as well as the unbelievers all come short of the glory of God, regardless of how many good works were done)
Rom 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
It's more than that...You not only have to have the law written in your hearts, you can not fail at the law...
Rom 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: (if you sin without the law [Gentiles in this case] you are sunk) and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; (as as soon as you are judged by the law after you failed in even one point, you are sunk as well)
Rom 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
And then we jump over to Romans 3 where keeping the law has nothing to do with justification and righteousness...When Jesus died, the law was over with as to pertaining to judgement by the law...Jesus became sin and took on the judgement for everyone...For all time...
lie or move abjectly on the ground with one's face downward.Now it tells me a great deal that you think I misused the word. I didn't. It's a legitimate metaphor describing one's response to some sort of demand for behavior. Like you said about public forums, you can't expect other parties to play by your personal rules. I don't. But you came along and wanted me to not talk about the failed fable of transubstantiation. To give in to your demand for silence (the "shut up" to which I referred) would have required me to "act in an obsequious manner in order to obtain someone's forgiveness or favor." So it was a perfect word choice.
"she was groveling on the floor in fear"
synonyms: prostrate oneself, lie, kneel, cringe More
"George groveled at his feet, begging for mercy"
act in an obsequious manner in order to obtain someone's forgiveness or favor.
"everyone expected me to grovel with gratitude"
synonyms: be obsequious to, fawn on, kowtow to, bow and scrape to, toady to, truckle to, abase oneself to, humble oneself to
You’re missing the fact that if you fail at your faith you’re done too!
Only “he that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved.”
Eternal security is just another false gospel, like pre-trib rapture, and grace for those that refuse to obey.
1John 2 is the filter through which all ‘theologies’ must pass.
Yeshua said that his gate is narrow, and few will find it.
After reading the comments on the RF for 16 years, I do not doubt it!
.
I also find it interesting that in the subsequent explanatory clause they were told why they were to do this. It is a statement of purpose, not for the sacrifice of Christ soon to come, but for the meal itself. And that purpose was not the transmission of some partial distribution of grace, as though it were some sort of substance flowing from God to us. Rather, the stated purpose ... is to remember our Lord Jesus Christ. If He is there in the substance itself, then the meal is not a memory, a looking back to, but a direct experience of the Godhead. But Jesus says its for remembering. If it had some other purpose, He didn't say it. At least not here. Maybe Zwingli had it right after all.
As for Jesus' style of communication, it should be obvious to you I am discerning that from the text. If you think it helps your cause to suggest otherwise, then so be it. But the text is resplendent with the color and vibrancy of Jesus' teaching. He used metaphor fluently and unobtrusively in almost every public communication. He taught by the most memorable and powerful of analogies, images and words that still have wide currency in our culture. He wove his metaphors seamlessly into the flow of every subtheme of his overarching message. There is no committee intervening between us and these words of Jesus. They come to us directly from the inspired pens of the apostolic authors. These are the words given by the Holy Spirit of God Almighty. They are worth listening to.
Peace,
SR
More Sola Scriptura fun and games as editor-surveyor and Iscool (who do agree with each other that Catholicism is the work of the deebil...) disagree on what Scriptura means. Odd that, but there you are!
P.S.
You’re totally misunderstanding what “Law” is in Romans 3.
Its not the same law he speaks of in Romans 2.
The law in Romans 3 that has nothing to do with righteousness is the Pharisees’ false man made laws (takanot and ma’asim).
.
Here’s some interesting reading on the Lamb’s Book of Life:
http://www.desiringgod.org/resource/can-the-regenerate-be-erased-from-the-book-of-life
BTW, the Ten Virgins represent Israel. Some had oil, the Holy Spirit at work in their heart. The others did not. They were betrothed as a nation to the coming Messiah, but not all were elect. See Romans 9. The whole chapter. Good stuff.
It does not appear our faith is on trial in the conditional sense, but in the proof sense. the gold will survive any fire. Why do you suppose Peter used such analogy? To conjure up the image of a wooden faith that would combust at the first sign of heat? Or gold, which endures the fires of life. He was preaching to encourage though who were heavy in spirit, that their faith would survive, not that they had yet another possible failure to hang over their head. The faith that is the gift of God, like gold, is not capable of destruction by lesser things. Though we go through much sorrow and challenge in this life, if we are among those listed here, the end is as secure as the beginning:
Rom 8:28-31 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. (29) For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. (30) Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. (31) What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?
As for your preacher, it is to me a temptation to sin to ask me to judge his eternal state. I don’t know, and I would be presuming the role of God to make such a judgment. I urge you to withdraw that portion of your test. No good can come of it.
Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta:
“Jesus said, ‘I Am The Truth’, and it is your duty and mine to speak the truth. Then it is up to the person who hears it whether to accept or reject it.”
How about you answer my question first and we can go from there. What do you think "my" version of the Gospel is?
Perhaps, but it’s the Greek original that has the direct metaphor
Our Lord spoke Aramaic as His first language.
The phrase was uttered, we presume, in Aramaic, after which it would have been translated to Koine, then Latin, then English.
So you see the direct metaphor here is indisputable, at least linguistically.
No, I dont, and neither do you, unless you can carry on a colloquial conversation in Greek. I have studied several languages to one degree or another, although the only two in which I am fluent are English and Japanese. These efforts taught me the difficulties inherent in understanding things like metaphor in a foreign language, so until you produce someone who speaks Koine Greekand I mean *speaks* it, like we speak Englishno sale.
It is the sort of thing any first year student of Biblical Greek would recognize.
No, its not. That is demonstrated by the large number of accomplished scholars who disagree.
As for Jesus’ style of communication, it should be obvious to you I am discerning that from the text.
I suspected that you *think* you are discerning it from the text and I am amazed that you would think yourself capable of it. Gobsmacked.
There is no committee intervening between us and these words of Jesus.
Nonsense. Your interpretations are the ones you like best of the myriad offered to you by those who went before.
They come to us directly from the inspired pens of the apostolic authors...They are worth listening to.
This Protestant notion that just any old moron can understand the Bible without assistance is one of Satans best coups.
Now it tells me a great deal that you think I misused the word.
No, it doesnt.
I didnt.
Yes, you did.
Its a legitimate metaphor describing ones response to some sort of demand for behavior.
Perhaps you have confused me with someone else. I have not demanded any behavior of you.
But you came along and wanted me to not talk about the failed fable of transubstantiation.
Could I have some Twilight Zone music, please?
That never happened. Not in this world.
To give in to your demand for silence (the shut up to which I referred)
There was no such demand.
It has never been my intent to attack you personally. Only your errant theology.
Thats another similarity with the liberal style of confrontation. Do itdo the heck out of itthen deny it.
when you have it has been hostile and never going to substance.
I may have been hostile, but you probably just overlooked the substance.
But no, all you are to me is a three letter handle that is always hostile to me when I critique Catholic doctrine.
It is interesting that you regarded a calm repetition of truth as hostile.
I am confident you wouldnt sit by silent either if someone you dearly loved was being defamed, even if the defamers didnt know they were saying hurtful falsehoods.
It is very important in such a situation that you be right before you start attacking people. You are not right.
Though I am confident in my beliefs, I am always ready to learn new things as well.
Well, actually, no, you arent.
I dont know you from Adam, nor your posting history.
What brought that subject into the discussion? I didnt mention it.
I bear you no animus. We can do this peacefully.
Wow. Just like talking with liberals on Compuserve in the early days.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.