Posted on 12/04/2006 7:52:47 PM PST by Pyro7480
Not sure which verse that would be, but whatever is, the time is that of the Final Judgment. That’s all that counts for all eternity. The rest is just an overture.
In terms of sheep from goats . . . guess I’d have to agree in some measure.
However, there does seem to be a parting of the ways for Believers—significantly earlier—at least a whole big group—not counting the martyrs during the Tribulation period.
And then there’s the issue of the “Judgment Seat of Christh” for Believers where their rewards for their works are assigned.
Hmmmmmm . . . .
My impression is that the Final Judgment is in Heaven—at least the New Jerusalem.
Not that it matters—it will be wherever God wants it to be!
That's right, Q. :)
FK, perfect comes from completed accomplished or finished. Whatever other God's work you are speculating about, that is also completed. God doesn't leave anything unfinished because that would make Him subject to time.
God isn't subject to time, but He has certainly chosen to work there. Christ's earthly ministry was indeed 2,000 years ago, not some other time. It was not 4,000 years ago and also yesterday. That is, from our perspective. If we simply say that God is timeless and leave it at that, then the only effect is to shut down discussion of God. God IS timeless, but He has chosen to engage. If He had not, then He would have created His little experiment and then left it alone. He has chosen otherwise.
That was an excellent post, FK. God is truly outside of time, but He most definitely works inside of time as well since that is how He created our understanding.
In that department, I am a professional. :)
[Paul's] congregations would not have considered a worship existence outside of the centrality of the Eucharist. I think you can say you think they were wrong, but I don't think you can deny that the Eucharist was at the center of their understanding of what it meant to be church.
I also think that when you abandon the sacrament as so many churches have, you cut the bond that Christ left us, and as St. Paul reminds us, until such time as he returns.
I think that Harley made an excellent case that whether the first Christians centered around the Eucharist is highly debatable. So far as I am aware, there is no scripture indicating that Paul centered his worship around the Eucharist as practiced today by Roman Catholics. If there was, then I would probably BE a Roman Catholic. :)
To me, it always comes down to the sovereignty of God and what kind of relationship He intended to have with us. With the Eucharist, and the meaning behind it, we have a group of men squarely in between us laymen and God. God doesn't dispense grace to us individually, men of the Church do. Salvation doesn't come from God directly, it comes through the men of the Church through the sacraments, etc. Anything important has to go through a buffer of fallible men.
In my mind this is a very distant relationship with God. It makes much more sense to me that if God loves us as much as the Bible appears to tell us that He does, that He would want a much more personal relationship with us. I do not believe that can happen through middlemen. In my honest opinion, the Eucharist, as I understand its practice, is much more centered on the Church, than on God. I am not at all saying that I think it is an anti-Christian practice, or going anywhere near there. I'm just saying that I think the priorities are in the wrong place.
Finally, I find myself unable to hold the position that Paul practiced the Eucharist, as it is today, but that he was wrong. Given his conversion experience, I don't see how he could have been so wrong on something so important. It has been my experience here that Roman Catholics find Paul to be their least favorite Apostle precisely because he is so clear in teaching Reformed theology. It seems extremely unlikely to me that Paul would preach a personal relationship with Christ, but then practice a sacrament that diminishes the intimacy.
Korah and his cohorts felt this way too, saying to Moses: "You have gone far enough, for all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is in their midst; so why do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the LORD?" (Num 16:3)
Moses's reply is telling:
"Is it not enough for you ...? Are you seeking for the priesthood also?" (Num 16:9-10)
-A8
Of course, you are right. But we were talking about Creation, and that was work done outside of time or mankind, hence I thought it strange that you would mention His "other work" in that context.
My point was that God didn't leave anything undone (His work is perfect, complete). Of all the Christians, you as a Reformed Baptist should believe that no matter how much God intercedes in your life on a daily basis from your perspective, all that is just playing out what has been determined to happen, your percpetion notwithstanding. Your future is a done deal, FK.
As you well know, any person can have all of those good qualities, and yet be damned to hell. It is God's grace that saves, and we are "helpless" in the sense that we cannot manufacture it ourselves. It must be given to us.
That we use those blessings to condemn ourselves to hell is not His, but our choosing. We can equally choose to cleave to God and be saved. It's a choice, for the wicked do not seek after God (cf Ps 10:4).
Mostly true. We just disagree on who the driving force behind that decision is.
God offers His saving grace to all because He desires to have all men saved (cf 1 Tim 2:4), and He does not desire or delight in death (perdition) even of the wicked (cf Eze 18:23) or anyone for that matter (cf Eze 18:32).
I agree that God does not delight in perdition, but you describe a very weak God who most often fails to get what He wants. The God you and I believe in is omnipotent, which means that He ALWAYS gets what He wants according to His good, pleasing, and perfect will. By definition, it is impossible for an omnipotent being to fail to get what He wants. You can argue that God WANTED to leave salvation up to us, but that doesn't square with a literal interpretation of Him wanting all to be saved.
He offers to everyone, not only some, precisely because He loves everyone, even the wicked.
You have been showed all the scripture contradicting this idea. God does not love the damned, or else He would have saved them. He is omnipotent. To say that God treasures man's free will over and above His own love for His creation is like saying a good parent would let his 4-year-old play in traffic because the child wanted to. It makes zero sense. God's love for HIS children is MUCH stronger than that. And the parent-child comparison isn't even close. Our own human children are WAY more mature and capable than we adults are compared to God. Human history proves this true.
Thank you so much for the good history and the cool pics! :) Looking into Sherman's eyes I can tell that this man was on a mission. :) God bless the republic.
And yet you still go to church on Sundays and subject yourself to a preacher, and you watch while that pastor baptizes other people, and performs the Lord's Supper.
If you really want what you say you want, then on Sunday mornings, don't place yourself under some other man. Why subject yourself to another man's interpretation of Scripture? Instead, stay home and preach to yourself, interpret the Bible for yourself. Perform your own Lord's Supper. Baptize yourself. As long as you continue to place yourself under a pastor, it is hard to take your anti-hierarchical sentiments seriously. Go all the way and take your individualism to its logical conclusion.
-A8
No, mankind is damned to hell because it misused and misuses its freedom and the blessings God gave us.
We just disagree on who the driving force behind that decision is
God gives. We (mis)use by His permission. You believe that God teaches you how to drive, gives you a driving license, and a car, but you never get to drive it.
I agree that God does not delight in perdition, but you describe a very weak God who most often fails to get what He wants
He desires to save all men, doesn't delight in seeing anyone lost, even the wicked (all biblical statements), but the reality tells us that not all are saved, and that the good and the wicked perish, none of which makes it my description. You have issues with those scriptural truths and how they play themselves out in the real world.
The Scriptures tell us that things happen even though God doesn't desire them. Are you denying that?
By definition, it is impossible for an omnipotent being to fail to get what He wants
God wants us to have freedom. We do. He gave us the intellect and the means to not to be helpless little morons, but rather to be a reflection of His image and likeness, not as His little robots but as His people.
And we failed. In your theology, that means, your omnipotent God either isn't omnipotent or He simply wants us to fail!
I really think the Reformed suppress the idea that this is what their theology subliminally teaches. It's a defense mechanism because it would crumble the whole foundation of their faith.
You have been shown all the scripture contradicting this idea. God does not love the damned, or else He would have saved them. He is omnipotent
Of course He loves the damned; He love all His creation. That's why He desire for all men to be saved. They are damned not because He created them damned (as you believe!) but because they chose to be damned by rejecting God.
And you misconstrue strength as forcing people to do what you want them to do.
-A8
-A8
I figured it was. Thanks.
FK, Post 14,735 was meant for you.
Really? Hmmm. So if I was to show you that the early Christians thought that the Eucharist was Christ Himself, whom they worshipped, you'd become a Catholic?
In my honest opinion, the Eucharist, as I understand its practice, is much more centered on the Church, than on God. I am not at all saying that I think it is an anti-Christian practice, or going anywhere near there. I'm just saying that I think the priorities are in the wrong place.
FK, "church" means the community of God's people. It also is the Body of Christ. There is mysterious meaning behind these words of Paul. A relationship with Christ IS intimate and personal! To a Jew, the life is found in the blood. Christ offers His life to us sacramentally in the Eucharist. You can't get much more intimate than that. Is there a better way that Christ can abide within us than the sacramental presence of Christ in the Eucharist? Considering the writings of the first Christians, it seems pretty clear that they, too, considered Christ to be present in the Eucharist, and that they shared an intimate union with Him as a result. Your idea of the Eucharist being centered on the Church is a stereotype knee-jerk reaction to priests, I think.
It has been my experience here that Roman Catholics find Paul to be their least favorite Apostle precisely because he is so clear in teaching Reformed theology.
LOL! Clearly? I will have to disagree on that one. Even Scriptures themselves tell us that Paul's writings can be difficult to understand. I wouldn't place all my bets on a contorted understanding of Paul alone, knowing that this can lead to destruction - according to the Word of God.
It seems extremely unlikely to me that Paul would preach a personal relationship with Christ, but then practice a sacrament that diminishes the intimacy.
The sacrament diminishes intimacy? LOL! How would making God visible diminish intimacy? Are you closer to your wife when you are thinking about her, or when you are in her visible presence???
Scriptures tell us that the disciples of Christ recognized the Risen Lord in the breaking of the bread. We know they celebrated it daily. Thus, they were in a visible and intimiate relationship with Christ daily.
Where do you live? I'll ask the nearest parish to come fetch you!
Regards
I thought his post was cogent too.
To me, it always comes down to the sovereignty of God and what kind of relationship He intended to have with us. With the Eucharist, and the meaning behind it, we have a group of men squarely in between us laymen and God. God doesn't dispense grace to us individually, men of the Church do. Salvation doesn't come from God directly, it comes through the men of the Church through the sacraments, etc. Anything important has to go through a buffer of fallible men.
There's a lot there that I agree with. The thing that prompts a lot of debate though is necessary or mandated contiguity between ecclesiology and sotierology (sp?).
And that's when I'm really caught up by being only 7 days behind! :)
Sadly what I think is lacking in the Baptist churches (and many Protestant churches) is a focus on the Lord's Supper. Generally it's relegated to a once-a-month type affair at the end of some service. To be sure different groups treat it differently. I believe John Piper has it every Sunday but he's the rare exception rather than the norm.
Yes, regretfully what you describe is exactly how it is practiced in my own church. I would be very supportive of any movement to have it every Sunday. I love participating in the Lord's Supper.
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.