Christos Voskrese!
Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
Pretty much. I would say it is a sign meant for those who are regenerated. Jesus did no great visible works until the sign of the Spirit came upon Him and His ministry began. So, too, the Christian who abides in the Spirit of Christ. While some heretics see this as a proof of adoption of Jesus into the Godhead at this point, we realize that the Spirit was in Christ all along.
Regards
Presuming it IS God's Word. I just got done reading an article that refuted the newest Da Vinci Code nonsense. Of course, THEY believe the Scriptures are merely cover ups by the Church to hide the real truth...
We believe the Bible is God's Word based on faith that the Church has vouched for this fact.
Each of us will give an accounting of our own actions based upon this book.
If you consider "us" as Christians. But all mankind will be judged based on their knowledge of God within their conscience. I doubt God will judge some Eskimo in the Artic from the 1600's based on knowledge of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
This principle is recorded in Samuel where every man did right in their own eyes.
ALL men have the natural law within them. EVERYONE knows what is right and what is wrong, to a degree, based on how they react when someone does something to them. Do they feel justice has been disrupted? Then they KNOW that a particular act is wrong - and shouldn't be doing it. In the Scriptures, man KNOWS what is evil - the Jews especially have no excuse. Some CHOOSE NOT to follow this law.
But keep in mind the FEAR of the Lord is the BEGINNING of wisdom
Fear is defined differently in the OT and the NT. Consider what John talks about fear and how it relates to God
In charity there is no fear; but charity that is perfect casts out fear; because fear has torment; from which he that fears is not complete in charity. 1 John 4:18
I believe fear in the OT is more correctly thought of as "awe", not in being afraid. Since God is Love, God casts out any fearfulness. A holy "fear", or piety is certainly necessary - it sets the utter distance between God and man in proper perspective.
Regards
I don't see an error here. The Scriptures plainly state that God desires the salvation of ALL men. It states this in several Scriptures. Rather than twisting Scriptures to fit your paradigm, perhaps you should build your paradigm based on what is there. God did create men, but He didn't make them wicked. This makes God the author of evil, which you refuse to tie to your theology. If God created men SPECIFICALLY to be wicked, then you CANNOT say that God did not author sin. This is an utterly ridiculous claim. Christianity has NEVER said that God created evil, at least before the Reformation.
God wills all men to be saved.
God looks to see who will refuse His grace and persistently refuse to turn to Him.
All others who do not positively refuse God are considered predestined positively, not because of merit, but because God wants all men saved, and God's graces were not continuously rejected.
"The wages [what one earns] of sin is death, but the free gift [unearned] of God is everlasting life" Romans 6:23
The human analogy: The parents desire the best for their children. No child feels they have to do things to earn their parents love. Even if they don't cut the grass, they will still be loved. The parents love the kids because THEY are good, not the child. However, the children know if they are bad, they can earn punishment. Continuously bad behavior, done long enough, can result in a disinheritance of the child. Sadly, the parent lets the kid do his own thing.
God does something similarly with us. God loves us, even without considering whether we will respond to His love. God has proven His love, even when in sin. His love is boundless, overcoming even such an obstacle as the death of His only Son to prove to us His love. We do not earn His love by deeds. However, as the Scriptures note time and time again, we CAN be disinherited from this love by turning from God and refusing to return to Him.
While I know you don't believe in double predestination, the scriptures plainly state there are those who God has purposely created for destruction.
You are reading into Scriputre what is not there. God created vessels for the express purpose of destroying them? Hardly. God saw that some of His creation would be destroyed due to their own rejection of God.
However, simply because God knew that some of His creation would not come to Him and that He created hell for their destruction, logically implies that He knew and destined their fate.
I disagree. God's foreknowledge does not imply that He decreed said person would be destroyed. He merely foresees that the man will reject Him, not that HE actively caused it. Or are you saying that God is the author of sin?
True. That is why you won't find the term "free will" in scripture in regards to man's salvation.
LOL! Do a word-search on "perseverance" or its derivatives....
I seem to remember a verse, "Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins..."
God is absolutely requiring that blood be shed???
If man had faith then man would be regenerated now wouldn't he? By definition of "faith", he would do at least one pleasing thing to God-to believe on the one whom He sent.
There are different definitions of faith. John talks about "insufficient" faith vs. faith in Christ as the messenger of the Father. Paul talks about faith as being worthless without love. And we all know about James. It depends on how you define "faith".
Regards
Soli Deo Gloria~
I think it would take a good part of eternity. :O)
Correction: God St. Paul: "Therefore, having ...."
The OT righteous believed in the same God, and would therefore be justified. In fact, Christianity does not consider itself a "new" religion, but a continuation of the same faith, beginning with Abraham.
Who's right? And let's not forget about applying this to Orthodox and Catholics brethren now, shall we? How do we know they're right?
Well, there is certainly more biblical evidence that it was left up to the Apostles and their successors than to some self-styled, self-rigtheous individuals 1,500 or so years after our Lord was crucified. If I have to choose, I would say the Church established by our Lord Jesus Christ has more credibility than man-made so-called churches, beginning with Luther and Calvin.
The people didn't like it and came together and asked Samuel to give them a king. Remember God's response?
Yes, I have posted it several times already; it's a perfect biblical example of man's free will to reject God.
The Orthodox never left the Church. They stopped communing with the Latin side of the Church, when the Latin side stopped communing with the East. Nevertheless, their clergy remains valid, and both particular Churches draw their authority from their Apostolic founders.
Protestant assemblies never has Apostolic authority passed on directly to them in an unbroken succession. Sorry.
Then how can man be faulted? The only way man can be held accountable is if, at some point, man resists or wilfully disobes God's will, and takes the fall for it. Otherwise, it's none of his doing.
Don't forget: most Protestants are OT Christians.
And what about faith that God gives to us to believe?
"There are different definitions of faith....It depends on how you define "faith"."
Oops...I guess it's like that pesty "is" word.
That was a good answer, Kosta. Neither church can be faulted entirely, and both still remain part of the Apostolic Church established by Christ.
Brother in Christ
God doesn't give ALL men equal gifts, according to the Church - thus, we can presume that God does not give all men "faith". But if He doesn't, it must be based on man's rejection of God.
Oops...I guess it's like that pesty "is" word.
LOL! Really, there ARE different meanings, which Protestants themselves tell me, such as James' definition of Satan's faith in Christ and Paul's definition of faith in Christ.
Regards
OK, I think I see where you are coming from better, thanks. I don't think that God passes over anyone without "knowing" anything. Nothing is ever hidden from God. I do NOT think the system is set up as follows: God gives 10 units of grace to Jim, and also 10 units to Bob. Jim uses his free will together with the grace and accepts Christ. Bob uses his free will also, with the grace, but he chooses to reject God.
Instead, to quantify it for example, I believe there are "X" amount of units of grace for each person that will guarantee a decision for Christ. The "X" might even vary from person to person. Anyway, God gives the "X" amount to all of His elect, and He does not for everyone else. Man contributes nothing to his own salvation. It is all in God's hands.
Now, I also think that God does not choose His elect randomly. I cannot tell you how He arrives at His decisions, but it doesn't seem to me that God would be in full control if He ever rolled the dice on anything.
Finally, I believe that God retains His justice because He has no duty to save anyone. Do you believe that man must have free will for God to be a just God, or that God's justice demands that some are saved?
God doesn't need to ordain something to be still in control. God keeps things in existence. ... God always retains control, no matter what man chooses to do. How could this not be so, since God sees into man's future and has already seen the end of time???
To me, this sounds like a very passive control, at best. God watches and knows what man will do, but God does not intervene, at least very much. A baseball club owner can watch a game. He owns everything, but does he control the outcome of the game? No. My idea of control is much more active, perhaps more like an athlete in an individual sport.
Explain to me why crucifixion HAD to be the manner in which God chose to save man. Are you now taking away God's free will in the manner of our salvation?
God chose the manner of our salvation, for His own reasons, so His free will is intact. Let's separate it into death and manner of death. God could have ordered the universe such that a snap of the fingers would have accomplished the salvation of mankind. But He chose not to. I know that because of the fact of the crucifixion. That He died must have been necessary, in view of His justice, or else He committed suicide unnecessarily. It would make no sense for Him to give up His life if a viable alternative was some other way.
As you well know, in those days the ultimate method of execution was the crucifixion. It was ultimate pain, ultimate suffering, and ultimate humiliation. By comparison, John the Baptist got off quite easily, wouldn't you say? :) I believe this must also have been necessary or else it wouldn't have happened. If a single man had run Him through or lopped off His head, then the whole focus of the faith would have been thrown off. This was a corporate murder by "all" the people, including us.
Here, brother, is where we must accept Revelation, even if we cannot fully understand how two different concepts can co-exist. Try not to rationalize mystery too much.
That sounds exactly like what Spurgeon said. I guess you do like some of his stuff. :) I agree there are plenty of mysteries that we will never understand fully while on earth. I still think it's fun to try to figure things out, as long as it doesn't corrupt the most important points of faith.
In the physical world, would you say that someone was just for denying someone water or food who lived in a prison cell and did not have the ability to feed themselves?
No, in that case the withholder would not be just, unless there was a lawful sentence of death by starvation. The jailer has a duty to feed the inmate. God has no such duty to save.
You can't hold to both ideas: God is Just/God withholds grace from people without knowing their response.
I hope I explained above why I do not hold the latter view. Let me know if I need to explain more.
The Bible is full of testimony in which God turns His eyes from His people AFTER they turn from Him.
I agree both that it happened, and that it was just.
What faith is required of a person who has seen the mountains move?
Apparently in many cases, plenty. I have always been astounded at how quickly the Jews turned away from God after they all just witnessed the parting of the Red Sea.
FK: "Here is another example of God's dependence on man. God foresees man's exercise of his free will, and then God is bound not to withhold. Under your view, man steers God's will."
YOUR SALVATION DEPENDS ON THIS! That God bind Himself to YOU! You utterly rely on God's promise of eternal life! Does this mean that God has given up control to you, FK, because now God "has to" reward you?
While I do rely on God's promise of eternal life, AND that He won't take it away from me once I have it, I don't think His promises are kept out of a duty owed by Him to me for something I did with my free will. I see the salvation promises as being one way. So, yes, I would see it as God giving up control if He "risked" losing one of His elect to himself.
The Bible is pretty clear that man will be judged for WHAT HE HAS DONE - in other words, in complying with the graces that God has given.
Yes, there is scripture on this, but we have an honest disagreement on the subject of the judgment, in cases like this. Based on the context, I believe that judgment can be either for salvation or for other rewards once in heaven.
But it is impossible to obey God in a pleasing manner - faith working in love - without the grace of God. Not even once.
I agree. In my view, there is no such thing as "man's morality". There is only God's. Each man lives up to it to whatever degree he does. God ultimately decides this by the disposition of His graces. I think it says somewhere in the Bible that martyrs receive a higher praise from God. I don't feel cheated because it is unlikely that I will ever become an actual martyr. I am perfectly content to leave it all up to God.
"How can you lose when you stick with the 'A' material? :)"
Indeed. Except I would consider our many and lengthy Scriptural readings to be our "A+" material -- our "A" material is our huge corpus of liturgical texts, which have been honed and polished over countless centuries. :-)
It is no exaggeration to say that if one were to attend an Orthodox Vespers and Matins daily for a year (with the services in a language one understands, of course), with not a single service ever being preached and without reading a single book, one would probably have a better understanding of Christian theology than the average person with an M.Div.
"FK: I'm sure everyone agrees. I just have a question about the technical aspect of what happened at Jesus' baptism ..."
To say that the Holy Spirit "empowers" the Son is neither biblical nor christological.
Since this is really directed to Harley, I think it's only right to give him the first response, if he wishes. So, to Harley, this all comes from 5120.
Voistinu Voskrese!
That seems about right! Amazing.
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.