No, but it sure looks that way, doesn't it!? perfect doesn't fail. We do. As far as I know, God didn't write the Bible. We did. Given all the versions and conversions, and revisions, and additions and substractions...that is obvious.
Jesus' sacrifice applied retroactively. God isn't subject to time, right?
That's correct, except the Divine Economy of our salvation is God's work in our time. God intercedes in time.
But Jesus says it as plainly as it can be said. What is your interpretation of: John 3:3...
Figure of speech.
It never occurred to me before that you don't believe there is a very real change of a person at the point of belief.
There is a very real change, of course, but it's the same person, different direction. At one point we realize that we are mortal, we are humbled. Our pride and arrogance, which obscure God's likeness we were created with, begins to shine through.
The more humble we become, the more it shines, like sun through thinning clouds. Humility sheds our caked sin that obscures God's light. As this happens, we see a totally "new" self in us that we didn't recognize was there all along. It's like a beautiful frescoes on the fall covered with bad wallpaper. As we peel off the layers, we discover the God-painted beauty underneath them.
We are born with mud on our hearts because of our ancestral sin. When that mud get's washed off, with the Holy Spirit, we begin to regain our likeness to God (process of theosis). There kis no new heart. There is the same heart, except cleansed, "shining like new!" :)
You all believe the Spirit temporarily indwells at infant baptism, and the rest is up to us, so there wouldn't be any need for a change in nature of the person from a slave to sin, to one of righteousness, etc.
No, we believe in one baptism for the remission of sins. Whatever sins you have they are forgiven at baptism. We are given a new chance ("life" figuratively speaking) to walk in the steps of Christ.
Baptism is adoption not salvation. We are given a new home, the House of God (Church) in which we can safely grow in the merciful love of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and walk in His steps.
so there wouldn't be any need for a change in nature of the person from a slave to sin, to one of righteousness, etc.
There is no change in our nature (essence), we are still psuchesarkoi (bodysoul); what has changed is our choice.
If the Bible includes human desires in ADDITION to God's truths, then they must oppose each other since if they were the same they would be included as under God's truths. Therefore, you cannot believe the Bible is inerrant
I didn't say the Bible is inerrant. I said I don't believe it is a literal word of God. I also maintain that it contains God's truth (message), but not necessarily as literal accounts of events.
I also maintain that Exodus is a Jewish myth, biblically and historically. It never happened.
if human desires are added, then God should prove the Bible to be a document with lies: Prov 30:5-6 : 5 "Every word of God is flawless..."
I agree that every word of God is flawless. I do not agree that every word in the Bible is God's word.
I for one do not believe the Bible is a document with lies
Me neither, just myths and popular beliefs.
If Paul did appoint himself, then he could not have been sent. That means he was not one of God's chosen Apostles, and you should discredit absolutely everything he ever said that was not officially sanctioned by the consensus patrum
You don't have to be sent in order for the Spirit to reveal things to you. +Paul was "sent" in a sense as rain is sent to a drought-stricken region: it took the person he was to embrace Christ with his zeal and save the Church from certain destruction. That doesn't mean everything he said was God's own word. Many times he says it's his commandment, not the Lord's.
The original Apostles were not sent; they were picked, chosen on the spot. We could say that the prophets were "sent" but not the 12 Apostles. Perhaps the word is a misnomer. Disciples (students) is a better word.
But one of the 12 was the devil, as the Bible tells us. If they were all 'sent," then surely Judas was 'sent" too! Are we then to assume that the evil are also "sent" (by whom? by God?), which means Judas was simply doing Christ a divine "favor" and Caiaphas and Pilate were doing God's work!? Was Cain? Was the Pharaoh?
So, they were all "apostles" then? And everything they said and did was God's work!? I don't think so.
I suppose we will always disagree about that. :) I believe that the original was directly from God. Further, in the major Christian translations I believe God has protected the core faith. Sure, it is possible that minor error has crept into some of them, but 100% of the true faith is still there. Thus, if the only Bible I had available to me was the version you use, I would be perfectly fine with that. That's pretty amazing considering how much we disagree theologically. :)
FK: "But Jesus says it as plainly as it can be said. What is your interpretation of: John 3:3..."
Figure of speech.
That's what Nicodemus thought, and Jesus immediately corrected him. Jesus says in effect "No no no, I'm NOT kidding, you must be born again. You are born once in the flesh and you must be born again in the Spirit". That isn't a figure of speech, it is literal truth.
We are born with mud on our hearts because of our ancestral sin. When that mud gets washed off, with the Holy Spirit, we begin to regain our likeness to God (process of theosis). There is no new heart. There is the same heart, except cleansed, "shining like new!" :) (emphasis added)
Scripture disagrees:
Ezek 36:26-27 : 26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.
Another figure of speech? I mean, on one level it is, but it refers to a literal change. New heart and new Spirit.
Baptism is adoption not salvation. We are given a new home, the House of God (Church) in which we can safely grow in the merciful love of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and walk in His steps.
But if sins are forgiven at Baptism, as you say, then it must be salvific. That is, if you believe that forgiveness of sins is necessary for theosis. It is, though, only a temporary salvation, since the Apostolic view is that man has the power to trump what the Bible says God did once and for all.
I also maintain that Exodus is a Jewish myth, biblically and historically. It never happened.
Jews of Jesus' time certainly believed it was literal. If you are correct then the Passover is a complete fraud. Jesus practiced the Passover as a religious activity. If He knew it was all a fraud, I wonder why He never said anything.
The original Apostles were not sent; they were picked, chosen on the spot. We could say that the prophets were "sent" but not the 12 Apostles. Perhaps the word is a misnomer. Disciples (students) is a better word. But one of the 12 was the devil, as the Bible tells us. If they were all 'sent," then surely Judas was 'sent" too!
The Greek word is "Apostolos" which means "he that is sent" (Str. 652). By the time of the Great Commission, Judas was already dead. All of the true Apostles were sent.