Posted on 12/04/2006 7:52:47 PM PST by Pyro7480
Read the context of the passage and that is exactly what Christ is referring to when He talks of 'water'.
If you read the passages without reading into it, you would see that.
ii. Some have thought that born of water refers to our physical birth, since we come forth from a sack of water. This approach is more attractive, but doesn’t it simply state the obvious? However, it does make a good parallel with the idea of that which is born of the flesh in John 3:6. http://blueletterbible.org/Comm/david_guzik/sg/Jhn_3.html
But, it would seem to me that being born of the water would be a reference to our natural birth, as the fetus is in that water sac being protected, and then there is the water bursting and the child is born. To be born of the water would refer to the natural birth, because in context then, Jesus said, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, but that which born of the Spirit is spirit." And so, He's talking about the two births: born of the water, and born of the Spirit. And that the born of the Spirit is referring to the new birth, the spiritual birth that we have, where born of the water would refer to the fleshly birth. http://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/chuck_smith_c2000/Jhn/Jhn003.html
Moreover, that best explains 1Jn. 5:6, that Christ came by water and blood, that is, both human and Divine.
Yet, disagreeing over verses doesn't justify your 'troll' comment.
You can dialog whomever you like to, just don't attempt to throw around RCC dogma as fact and expect it not to be challanged with the scriptures.
Ye err not knowing the scriptures...
Yes, exactly what you do with James 2...
No, because I gave you other scriptures that explain my position, scriptures that you cannot deal with and thus ignore.
I have proven, by comparing scripture with scripture, that James 2 is not speaking of works being needed for eternal life.
What James is referring to in James 2 is the growth of the believer, not his salvation.
If a believer does not grow, the Lord removes him from this life (Jn.15:2, 1Jn.5:16 cf Acts 5:5)
Note, however, that I don't belittle you with the label "Cult". This tells everyone out there WHO has some love in their heart and who is intent on dissolving the Body of Christ. As my tagline states, I am not obliged to continue listening to your debasing attacks - yet I have without responding in kind. THAT'S a sign of humility. Your arrogant attacks that fail to see the hypocrisy of them are not.
I told you had a cultic method of interpretation of scripture, which you do.
Any cult that wants to 'prove' a heresy, sticks to a few picked scriptures and ignores those that prove him wrong.
That is exactly what you and your RC friends are doing with James 2.
Paul states very clearly that works have nothing to do with one's salvation and James does not contradict that fact.
Works have nothing to do with getting saved or staying saved.
They have everything to do with showing one is saved.
Until you figure out that you personally do not hold the key to the Scriptures, whatever attack you make against Catholics for improper interpretation can be laid at your feet in spades. Look to the Scriptures. They tell us to defend the reason for our hope IN MEEKNESS - IN HUMILITY. Until you learn humility, your interpretations of Scriptures have no authority.
I gave you the facts and did not attack you personally.
I pointed out the error of your method of interpretation.
Unable to deal with the truth, you harden yourself to it.
The Lake of Fire is going to be full of people repeating over and over again, 'faith without works is dead', people who thought they could do something to earn salvation
Regards
Likewise.
And you don't understand the scriptures.
Darby didn't 'invent' anything.
What he, and the Scofield reference Bible did, was make the pre-trib view well known.
Stop throwing around red herrings.
If the scriptures teach the pre-trib view, using the correct hermentucial approach,(literal/figurative) than that is all that matters and that is what has to be refuted.
And the same is true of the preterist view.
It stands or falls on how well it explains the scriptures, not 'wresting them'.
So then, according to the RCC, are the EOC orders valid?
My wife often comments that in Heaven, God is going to sit me and a few of the Religion Forum Freepers down in a corner and explain thing to us. And then we will all laugh.
With all due respect, this is purely bogus. The pre-trib idea was unknown in the Church until Darby came along. He was forced to reinterpret 1 Thessalonians 4 in the light of his new-found theology of Israel and the Church.
Darby was not relying on anything explicitly in Scripture or that was recognized by the Church for 1830 years. Darby had to invent something, the radical distinction between Israel and the Church, that is not in the Bible. He was forced to reinterpret and ignore many verses, explicitly the NT, in order to arrive at his nouveau conclusions.
This is easily verified by reading Darby and looking for any reference to early church fathers on the subject. There are none. What Darby did was akin to the Jehovah’s Witnesses reinterpretation of the Bible text to suit their Arian theology.
Some one has said, “All heretics start with the Bible.” Darby may not have been a heretic in the strictest sense, but his views led to notions such as two methods of salvation, one for the Jews and one for the Church, that were popular for a time until the utter ridiculousness of such as idea was finally realized.
I am sorry, but you can't use Paul to prove James. They write differently and use different metaphors. They look at the Christian faith from a different point of view. They do not contradict. I see your attempt to use Paul's unclear writings to twist the meaning of James very clear writings. Quite frankly, I am at a loss to explain how you come up with James as refering to "physical salvation". James will always be a thorn in the side of Protestant eigesis. Your explanation is not helpful to the context of James. Your misreading of Paul only confuses the issue.
What James is referring to in James 2 is the growth of the believer, not his salvation.
You are ignoring the three times he says we are not saved by faith alone. THe word "saved" is pretty clearly pointing to the fact that he is talking about salvation!
If a believer does not grow, the Lord removes him from this life (Jn.15:2, 1Jn.5:16 cf Acts 5:5)
Which life is that? The physical? NO! WHO is the way, the truth, and the LIFE? Which "Life" does John refer to? He is invariably speaking of the life in Christ - what we refer to as eternal salvation. Those who do not have Christ abiding in them have no life. No Christ. No salvation. This is not speaking of physical life, but spiritual.
I told you had a cultic method of interpretation of scripture, which you do. Any cult that wants to 'prove' a heresy, sticks to a few picked scriptures and ignores those that prove him wrong
I disagree with your interpretation of James and Paul. So I am of a cult and I use cultic methods of interpretation? You claim to know Christ when you feel you must stoop to such methods? I can certainly go to Paul to explain the Catholic point of view. However, James very clearly states that your position is wrong. Your inability to defend your position and go to more ambiguous Scriptures is not how one should seek the truth. If your stance falls on such clear Scriptures, why must you go to Paul, whom Peter says can be difficult to understand? Because, through subterfuge, you want to trick people into thinking your sola fide is found in the Bible.
Paul states very clearly that works have nothing to do with one's salvation and James does not contradict that fact.
If you can learn to read my posts and those of other Catholics on this forum, you might actually find that WE do not teach that works without faith save, either. Without them, however, you have no faith. James clearly tells us that a faith without works is not a saving faith. Paul says the same exact thing in 1 Cor 13:2-3. He says faith to move mountains is worthless without love. These BOTH tell us that faith ALONE does not save. Dead faith, worthless faith, do NOTHING to save us.
You are teaching a false gospel, friend. Without love, you are nothing. The ONLY command Jesus gave us is to love. NOT to have faith without love. TO LOVE OTHERS AS HE HAD LOVED US. Move that over in your mind and consider again your stance. Your stance does not include love. How can you then say you are following Christ when you do not even live up to His ONE command??? Your behavior here merely amplifies how much theology and action go hand in hand.
I gave you the facts and did not attack you personally.
First, I am part of a community that is spiritually dead, then I am part of a cult, but you didn't attack me personally? Ten years ago, I would have had some choice words for you, but by the grace of God, I have moved beyond these little games you play.
The Lake of Fire is going to be full of people repeating over and over again, 'faith without works is dead', people who thought they could do something to earn salvation.
You do not know the future, so kindly don't lecture me about it. For all you know, you might be occupying the Lake of Fire...
Regards
You two have had a most enjoyable conversation lately; thank you for including me as a spectator. It is a testimony to Christian faith that you can do it, and where I cannot, I try.
One day, after we all die, we will look at such talk and be very pleasantly amused. Now we see darkly, but in the Lord’s time we will see it bright.
= = =
Was blessed by your candor and wonderful Scriptural accuracy above. Thx.
Perhaps, but I have read Darby, Scofield, Rylie and others and still don't see what I'm missing. I've read Zechariah and Ezekiel but you have to balance them against other verses such as:
Jdg 10:11-14 And the LORD said unto the children of Israel, [Did] not [I deliver you] from the Egyptians, and from the Amorites, from the children of Ammon, and from the Philistines? The Zidonians also, and the Amalekites, and the Maonites, did oppress you; and ye cried to me, and I delivered you out of their hand. Yet ye have forsaken me, and served other gods: wherefore I will deliver you no more. Go and cry unto the gods which ye have chosen; let them deliver you in the time of your tribulation.
There seems to be this rosey color glass syndrome with Israel and the Jews. If they have not accepted the Lord Jesus Christ they are in desperate need of salvation and we should be praying for their souls. So what if God is gathering the nation together for one final battle? What does that have to do with today and their need for Christ?
Then, re-read Romans 9-11 in that context. Then we can talk more.
I have a niffy CD of Romans and listen to it at least once or twice a week. Right now God is calling in the Gentiles. Israel is cut off of the vine. God can graft them in again but there is no evidence of this grafting in because we would see the Jews accepting Christ. Is Darby and Scofield (or any dispensationalist for that matter) going to go on record and say God is grafting them onto the vine? And what would that say to us Gentiles?
I am sorry, but you can't use Paul to prove James. They write differently and use different metaphors. They look at the Christian faith from a different point of view. They do not contradict. I see your attempt to use Paul's unclear writings to twist the meaning of James very clear writings. Quite frankly, I am at a loss to explain how you come up with James as refering to "physical salvation". James will always be a thorn in the side of Protestant eigesis. Your explanation is not helpful to the context of James. Your misreading of Paul only confuses the issue.
Paul wrote nothing that was unclear about salvation.
If he did, then cite some scriptures that you have a problem understanding.
It can't be Eph.2:8 or Rom.4:3-5 to name just two.
Stop the smoke screen.
What James is referring to in James 2 is the growth of the believer, not his salvation.
You are ignoring the three times he says we are not saved by faith alone. THe word "saved" is pretty clearly pointing to the fact that he is talking about salvation!
Nowhere does James say that saved is referring to eternal salvation.
You are reading into it what you want.
Eternal salvation is not the issue being discussed in James 2, what is is faith being seen and producing fruit.
If a believer does not grow, the Lord removes him from this life (Jn.15:2, 1Jn.5:16 cf Acts 5:5)
Which life is that? The physical? NO! WHO is the way, the truth, and the LIFE? Which "Life" does John refer to? He is invariably speaking of the life in Christ - what we refer to as eternal salvation. Those who do not have Christ abiding in them have no life. No Christ. No salvation. This is not speaking of physical life, but spiritual.
Jn. 15:2 is speaking of taking away the physical life of the believer if he doesn't produce fruit.
If he does produce fruit, he is 'pruned' to produce more.
The life referred to in 1Jn. 5:16 is physical life, just as those who lost their lives in Acts 5 for lying to the Holy Spirit.
One can be saved eternally and still suffer the 'sin unto death'
I told you had a cultic method of interpretation of scripture, which you do. Any cult that wants to 'prove' a heresy, sticks to a few picked scriptures and ignores those that prove him wrong
I disagree with your interpretation of James and Paul. So I am of a cult and I use cultic methods of interpretation? You claim to know Christ when you feel you must stoop to such methods? I can certainly go to Paul to explain the Catholic point of view. However, James very clearly states that your position is wrong. Your inability to defend your position and go to more ambiguous Scriptures is not how one should seek the truth. If your stance falls on such clear Scriptures, why must you go to Paul, whom Peter says can be difficult to understand? Because, through subterfuge, you want to trick people into thinking your sola fide is found in the Bible.
Sola Fide is found in the scripture and is compared by comparing scripture with scripture.
Clinging to a few verses and ignoring clear scriptures that teach otherwise is cultic in its method.
So what part of Paul do you not understand when he says we are saved by grace, through faith not of works?
Paul states very clearly that works have nothing to do with one's salvation and James does not contradict that fact.
If you can learn to read my posts and those of other Catholics on this forum, you might actually find that WE do not teach that works without faith save, either. Without them, however, you have no faith. James clearly tells us that a faith without works is not a saving faith. Paul says the same exact thing in 1 Cor 13:2-3. He says faith to move mountains is worthless without love. These BOTH tell us that faith ALONE does not save. Dead faith, worthless faith, do NOTHING to save us.
And you might learn to read the book of Romans and Galatians and see you can't mix faith and works to get salvation.
Works have nothing to do with salvation.
James is speaking of a 'dead faith' one that is not producing fruit, not one that has anything to do with salvation.
One can have such a dead faith and still be saved as shown in 1Tim.2:11.
You are teaching a false gospel, friend. Without love, you are nothing. The ONLY command Jesus gave us is to love. NOT to have faith without love. TO LOVE OTHERS AS HE HAD LOVED US. Move that over in your mind and consider again your stance. Your stance does not include love. How can you then say you are following Christ when you do not even live up to His ONE command??? Your behavior here merely amplifies how much theology and action go hand in hand.
The greatest love I can show you is to tell you the true Gospel so you will be saved and not spend eternity in hell.
I gave you the facts and did not attack you personally.
First, I am part of a community that is spiritually dead, then I am part of a cult, but you didn't attack me personally? Ten years ago, I would have had some choice words for you, but by the grace of God, I have moved beyond these little games you play.
And none of those things were personal.
If you take them as such that is your problem, not mine.
You have received the truth, but have rejected it.
The Lake of Fire is going to be full of people repeating over and over again, 'faith without works is dead', people who thought they could do something to earn salvation.
You do not know the future, so kindly don't lecture me about it. For all you know, you might be occupying the Lake of Fire...
I know what the scriptures say about who will be in the Lake of Fire, those who reject the free gift of eternal salvation (Jn.3:36) and depend on their own works instead (Rom.9).
You have been warned (Tit.3:10)
Regards
Likewise.
The issue is obnoxious restatement of the points already made and responded to.
= = = =
I didn’t realize ANYONE thought I had a monopoly on
obnoxiousness.
Welllllllllllllllll alrighty then. THAT narrows it down, brother! LOL
Father Manuel de LacunzaFr. Manuel de Lacunza was a Roman Catholic Jesuit priest, born in Chili in 1731, and sent to Spain at the young age of 15 to become a Jesuit priest. When the Jesuits were expelled from Spain in 1767, Fr. de Lacunza moved to Italy. In 1790, he wrote a book on prophecy, called The Coming of Messiah in Glory and Majesty, which was published in Spain in 1812. Fr. de Lacunza wrote under the pen name, Juan Josafat Ben-Ezra (a converted Jew), allegedly to avoid detection since his book ended up on Rome's banned books list.
Fr. de Lacunza's book promoted a return to the literal interpretation of prophecy, and the primitive "futurist" view of Revelation. He rejected the "year-day" theory of the historicists. Consequently, he saw a personal Antichrist and future tribulation of 1260 days, followed by the coming of the Lord. He did not espouse a pre-trib rapture, as has been claimed.
EDWARD IRVING
In the 1820s, Edward Irving (NJ), pastored a Church of Scotland (Presbyterian) congregation in London. Irving became aware of Father de Lacunza's book, and was so impressed with it, he took it upon himself to translate it into English, adding a "preliminary discourse" of his own. Irving's English translation was published in 1827. Some of Irving's early prophetic views can be discerned from his "preliminary discourse," including, surprisingly, all the key elements of dispensationalism that later showed up in Darby's writings. Irving, in his "preliminary discourse," indicated that he had been teaching these things to his congregation beginning Christmas 1825, years before Darby is alleged to have arrived at his dispensational ideas [1]. Click here to read excerpts from Irving's preliminary discourse (NJ).
Irving had been preaching that God would restore Apostles and prophets to the Church, and a great Pentecostal outpouring would come just before the soon return of Jesus Christ. Right on schedule, rumors of healings, tongues, visions, and other manifestations began circulating in Port Glasgow, Scotland, from the home of James and George MacDonald, and their sister Margaret. People came from England, Ireland, and parts of Scotland to observe the supernatural manifestations in the "prayer meetings" held by the MacDonalds.
The "revival" soon spread to Irving's church, with "tongues" and other "manifestations" breaking out, especially among the women. Due to the strange goings on in Irving's church, and his heretical views on the person of Christ, Irving was eventually defrocked by the Church of Scotland, and moved his congregation to a rented hall, forming the Catholic Apostolic Church. (Irving taught that Jesus had a fallen sinful nature and only kept from sinning by the power of the Holy Spirit. This is similar to the teachings of some modern Charismatics, who see Jesus as the "proto-type Christian"). Not only were prophetic revelations and other alleged miracles occurring in Irving's congregation, but such "revelations" seemed to focus on end-time prophecy concerning the coming of the Lord.
February - June, 1830
Out of the spectacle of alleged latter-day Holy Spirit outpouring in Scotland and England, and the eschatological influence of de Lacunza's futurist/dispensationalism, emerged the very first documented evidence of a pre-tribulation rapture. This was first articulated in the form of a letter written by Margaret MacDonald, sister of James and George MacDonald of Port Glasgow. In March or April of 1830, after being ill and bed-ridden for about 18 months, Margaret claimed to have seen a series of visions of the coming of the Lord. She wrote down these visions and sent a copy to Edward Irving. A month later (June), Irving claimed in a private letter (NJ), that Margaret's visions had a huge impact on him. "the substance of Mary Campbell's and Margaret MacDonald's visions or revelations, given in their papers, carry to me a spiritual conviction and a spiritual reproof which I cannot express."
The outstanding feature of Margaret's visions was an outpouring of the Holy Spirit on a elite group within the Church, combined with a secret rapture before the revealing of the Antichrist. She saw only these "Spirit filled" Christians "taken" to be with the Lord, while the rest of the Church without this experience would be left to be purged in the tribulation. Click here to read Margaret's letter describing her vision (NJ).
September, 1830
The official quarterly publication of the Irvingites, "The Morning Watch," had promoted a post-trib coming exclusively through mid-1830. But, the September 1830 issue featured part two of an article by "Fidus" describing the theory that the seven letters in Revelation actually describe seven consecutive "Church ages." In this article, "Fidus" clearly articulated the new idea of a partial pre-trib rapture. "Fidus" saw the Philedelphian church being raptured prior to the tribulation, and the Laodicean church representing the less fortunate Christians. Click here to read the "Fidus" article (NJ). This article in The Morning Watch is the first (known) publication of a pre-tribulation rapture in Great Britain, several years before Darby mentioned a pre-trib rapture.
June, 1831
In the June issue of The Morning Watch , Edward Irving made crystal clear his pre-trib teaching. The biblical basis of the Spirit-filled Church being raptured before the tribulation was the catching up of the "man-child" in Revelation 12. Irving argued that the body of Christ has been "united to Him by regeneration of the Holy Ghost, 'born of God, sons of God,' (Rev. ii. 27; xii. 5). And therefore we with him are called Christ (1 Cor. xii. 12)." Irving went on to say that, "with this key [that the mention of 'Christ' includes Spirit-filled believers] the Old Testament prophecies which speak of Christ must be interpreted, ... and especially those prophecies which speak of the pregnant woman: to all which an explicet key is given to us in the xiith chapter of Revelation; where, though the child is spoken of as one (ver. 5), it is also described as many (ver. 11), who overcame the acuser; and when that number is accomplished, there are still a remnant of her seed, whom the dragon doth persecute and seek to destroy (ver. 17). This two-fold company -- the one gathered before, and the other after the travailing woman is cast out into the wilderness, ... -- do together constitute the New Jerusalem, the bride of the Lamb, which cometh doen from heaven." (The Morning Warch, June, 1831, pp. 301-302). …
JOHN NELSON DARBY & THE PLYMOUTH BRETHREN
The Irish preacher, John Nelson Darby (NJ), one of the founders of the Plymouth Brethren, wrote his first prophecy paper (NJ) in 1829 [5]. In this paper, Darby argued that unfulfilled Old Testament prophecy concerning the restoration of Israel should be applied to the Church. He also placed the Church on earth until the Revelation 19 coming at Armageddon. While he may have hinted at some dispensational ideas, such ideas were already fully developed in Irving's 1826 "preliminary discourse." Furthermore, on pages 6-10 & 19-21, Darby referred to Irving, de Lacunza, The Morning Watch, and even quoted some of Irving's works, including his "preliminary discourse!" So, while dispensationalism may have been evolving in Darby's own mind, clearly, these ideas were not original with him! He was reading them in Irving's and de Lacunza's works!
In 1830, Darby was still defending "historicism" against "futurism" three months after the clear pre-trib "Fidus" article appeared in The Morning Watch. In the December 1830 issue of The Christian Herald, Darby published an article entitled, "On 'Days' Signifying 'Years' in Prophetic Language" (NJ) [6]. Darby defended the standard "historicist" view, that the 1260 day tribulation meant 1260 years. Consequently, he saw the tribulation as largely past, and could not possibly have been expecting a pre-trib rapture, which requires a "futurist" viewpoint.
In 1830, J. N. Darby also visited the MacDonald's in Port Glasgow, and observed the "manifestations" in their prayer meetings, as Darby later recalled. Darby described the sequence of events — who prayed, who spoke in tongues, etc. [7]. But, while he noted Margaret's speaking, he failed to mention the subject of her prophesying. However, John Cardale, who was also present, wrote that Margaret "commenced also speaking ... gave testimony to the judgments coming on the earth; but also directed the church to the coming of the Lord as her hope of deliverance," and was heard speaking in a loud voice "denouncing the coming judgments." [8]. Therefore, we can conclude that Darby was fully aware that the "pre-tribulation rapture" was a subject of the prophecies among the Irvingite Charismatics. It was nine more years before Darby clearly espoused a pre-trib rapture in his published works.
"I was wrong about Darby."
Very understandable. Entrenched, rigid, narrow, tidy little boxed biases are very hard to change for all of us. Thankfully, you evidently were not the one who placed the $500 challenge to anyone who could find evidence of Pre-Trib Rapture prior to Darby.
So here's another example of pre-Darby accurate understanding of prophetic Scriptures . . . this one from p 42 of LaHay's THE RAPTURE: Who Will Face the Tribulation? Quix's extra emphases, of course.
Reverend Morgan Edwards was a Baptist pastor in Philadelphia who included a discussion on the pre-Tribulation return of Christ for His church in his book Millenium, Last Days Novelties, written in
Although he saw only a three-and-a-half-year Tribulation, he definitely saw the Rapture occur before the Tribulation. What is even more interesting is that he claimed he had written the same thing as early as
He may have been influenced by John Gill before him or even others whose writings or teachings were available at that time but have not been preserved.
In terms of the earlier convoluted mish mash about Pseudo-Ephrem . . . I don't recall any of that 'pretzel-pseudo-logic' as removing the very early mention of Pre-Trib Rapture from the record. The efforts were largely to be dismissive and minimizing of the relevence of that point. Might have been a slick strategy if it weren't so clunky and obvious.
It is amazing to me . . . that sane Calvinists . . . at least presumeably . . . WHO NORMALLY HAVE THE GOOD SENSE TO TAKE VIRTUALLY ALL OTHER SCRIPTURES LITERALLY WHEN REMOTELY POSSIBLE/PROBABLE-- suddenly turn lilly livered, shakey kneed and muddle-headed when it comes to prophecy Scriptures.
Now the psychologist part of me finds that very puzzling. I wonder what the explanation is. There's all this pontification and stridency about election, NONMarian understandings of Scripture etc. etc. etc. etc. all VERY LITERAL interpretations of Scripture.
But SUDDENLY, when a prophecy Scripture pops up-- ALL HAS TO BE QUICKLY, CONVOLUTEDLY, PRETZEL-PSEUDO-LOGICALLY SPIRITUALIZED, RATIONALIZED, HOMOGENIZED, TWISTED, SLICED, DICED AND NEUTERED in the seemingly vain, arrogant, insecure and fearful defense against the plain literal understanding that God said what He meant and meant what He said. Maybe we should call this perspective by those typically literalists EXCEPT FOR PROPHECY . . .
I realize that actually it's probably a function of some joker's personal psychology and political influences amongst Calvinists et al way back when. But it's still sad to observe at this critical era in history.
This is the author of the article. Tim Warner, author and editor of The Last Trumpet - Post-Trib Research Center. I suppose we can all go to our professional apologists and find anecdotal skeletons in each other’s closets or some eccentric aunt locked in the attic.
INDEED! VERY WELL PUT. THANKS FOR THIS AND THE REST OF THAT POST:
Darby didn’t ‘invent’ anything.
What he, and the Scofield reference Bible did, was make the pre-trib view well known.
Stop throwing around red herrings.
If the scriptures teach the pre-trib view, using the correct hermentucial approach,(literal/figurative) than that is all that matters and that is what has to be refuted.
And the same is true of the preterist view.
It stands or falls on how well it explains the scriptures, not ‘wresting them’.
There is only the issue of timing and how God arranges the return of the Jewish Remnant to accept their true Messiah. Paul makes VERY CLEAR in Romans and elsewhere that GOD SET THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL UP TO REJECT CHRIST INITIALLY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE GENTILES.
For God to then trash the Blood children of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob after using them in such a fasion . . . makes God out to be more than a little cheeky, insensitive and unfair.
He is still using them to set up ALL CREATION to realize HOW UTTERLY CRITICAL IT IS TO FOLLOW CLOSELY TO GOD ALMIGHTY EVERY MOMENT OF EVERY LIFE.
THE PRETZEL-PESUDO-LOGIC PERSPECTIVE ON ESCHATOLOGY would have folks think that GOD ALMIGHTY
SIMPLY COULD NOT POSSIBLY
HAVE CHOSEN to set things up such that the Jews would fall for the antiChrist as their messiah JUST PRIOR TO REALIZING THAT THEY'D CRUCIFIED THE REAL ONE.
I guess God didn't get the memo from the THE PRETZEL-PESUDO-LOGIC PERSPECTIVE ON ESCHATOLOGY folks that HE, ALMIGHTY GOD
simply COULD NOT--WAS THOROUGHLY UN-ABLE to plan, engineer and carry out such an ALMIGHTY GOD PERFECT design on such things.
Perhaps you should send Him an email. I'm sure He'd be terribly wounded and disappointed that the PRETZEL-PSEUDO-LOGIC ESCHATOLOGY folks would clip ALMIGHTY GOD'S wings on such a score. But he'd likely be appreciative of at least finding out what His ALLOWED boundaries as ALMIGHTY GOD !REALLY! ARE.
JockoManning thinks it’s this one:
MORNINGSTAR: JESUS [BROKEN] EAGLESTAR PRODUCTIONS;
but the one that blessed me so much driving by all the beautiful mountains is:
PRAISE CLASSICS: LORD OF LOVE: THE BEST OF OUR PRAISE
MARANATHA! MUSIC . . . familiar ones but somehow the combo is so powerful:
1. HE IS EXALTED/GREAT IS THE LORD
2. AS WE GATHER/THE STEADFAST LOVE OF THE LORD
3. IN MOMENTS LIKE THESE
4. I LOVE YOU LORD;
5. AS THE DEER
6 HIDE ME IN YOUR HOLINESS
7. THY LOVINGKINDNESS
8. BEHOLD WHAT MANNER OF LOVE
9. WHEN I LOOK INTO YOUR HOLINESS
10. OPEN YOUR EYES
11. PSALM 5
12. FATHER I ADORE YOU
13. MAKE ME A SERVANT.
Hope that’s more helpful! LOL.
LUB,
BLPH,
I repeat, Scriptures themselves say that Paul can be difficult to understand. Do you discount what the Bible says? I am not surprised...
Nowhere does James say that saved is referring to eternal salvation. You are reading into it what you want. Eternal salvation is not the issue being discussed in James 2, what is is faith being seen and producing fruit.
Faith without works is dead. That has nothing to do with eternal salvation? Wow... I hadn't realized that the spiritually dead will be going to heaven.
Jn. 15:2 is speaking of taking away the physical life of the believer if he doesn't produce fruit. If he does produce fruit, he is 'pruned' to produce more.
Friend, you are mistaken again. Being cut from the vine does not talk about being killed physically. Those that wither from the vine because they have been cut off die physically? And those who remain on the vine do NOT die physically? You are clearly incorrect. I know many devout Catholics and Protestants who died. Does their physical death mean that they were cut off from Christ? See where your eigesis takes us?
Sola Fide is found in the scripture and is compared by comparing scripture with scripture.
I respectfully disagree with you.
So what part of Paul do you not understand when he says we are saved by grace, through faith not of works?
You are confused on what Paul means when he says "works". Read Romans 4:4 - it tells us what Paul means by "works". He is saying we cannot earn salvation. No "work" can force God to pay us back. Thus, salvation is a gift given. It is not earned. Yet, without love, we are not saved, because we have dead faith. Thus, as Paul says, faith without love is worthless - or, as James said - faith without works is dead.
One can have such a dead faith and still be saved as shown in 1Tim.2:11.
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
I don't see it there, ftd.
The greatest love I can show you is to tell you the true Gospel so you will be saved and not spend eternity in hell.
By YOUR idea of being saved, I am already saved. Thanks for your concern, but by Protestant standards, I am "once saved, always saved". According to your standards, then, it shouldn't matter WHAT I do AFTER that! I can even become Catholic, because I am OSAS! Yippie!!! Whoopie, I got my bus ticket! AMEN!
I gave you the facts and did not attack you personally.
I see your name-calling as a personal attack. Yet, after three posts, no apologies. That says a mountain about how much "faith" you have. It is a dead faith because it has no works of love.
Regards
Are you saying the Darby is the eccentric aunt of dispensationalism?
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.