Posted on 07/22/2007 7:40:38 PM PDT by xzins
Because there are prohibitions against stuff like bowing before statues in there.
You owe me a new monitor! And a keyboard.
Yes, I see what you're saying. So, in the non-omnipresent sense the Spirit "leaves" at mortal sin and rejoins upon resolution. That's pretty close to what I thought the position was, and it is consistent within itself.
I don't see it that way given that the Spirit is a permanent seal, and we have all the verses telling us that God will not lose any of His sheep and that He will never forsake His children. He loved us WHILE we were yet sinners, so I don't see Him taking a hike just because of one really bad decision.
Another thought is to consider how does a person FIRST come to Christ and repent? There must be some sort of "pre-Baptismal state" where the Spirit is not "indwelling" yet, but is still effective in some manner, calling a person to conversion and repentance.
Yes, I believe that is true as well, but I would say "pre-belief state". :)
Good, then I look forward to this study. And you're right, it has taken me a long time to get through just a few pages, but he has made some pretty profound points so far. :) I'm still learning the way he uses terminology.
Yes, that is one option that happens. If my time on earth is finished He will take me home. If God still has use of me on earth, then the other option is that God causes me to change my ways and come back to Him.
Since Heaven is infinitely better than having a Democratic Congress and Senate, then isn’t that a very good reason to stop going about the Lord’s business?
The scriptures don't give us that option. It is for God to number our days, and there is nothing we can intentionally do to thwart that using this reasoning. For example, if it was my plan to not serve God in hopes that He would take me home earlier, then that would be strong evidence that I really didn't believe in the first place. The truly changed heart doesn't work like that.
What happens to that sin that is committed from time to time? Is it of any consequence, or no?
It is of no consequence to my salvation, but it is certainly going to affect me here. When I sin I am obviously rejecting God. There will be consequences for this. There will be earthly punishment and discipline, and I will likely be hurting someone else, and certainly myself. Repentance and confession can certainly mitigate this. The closer I stay to God the more fulfilled my life will be here on earth. In addition, whatever "rewards in Heaven" means will be affected by the level of sin on earth by believers.
Is this like saying God can sin?
Well, I would say it is definitionally impossible for God to "sin" since that would have Him denying His own nature. He could not do this and still be God. In addition, the rules for our sin and His nature are not the same because He does not answer to us. Therefore, for example for Him to utilize the death penalty does not require a trial with witnesses, etc.
Yes, All your sins re forgiven. No argument there. But if I break your window, and all my sins are forgiven, would you agree that I owe you a window and maybe an apology? If I break your window, and I'm having a good day (one with Guiness instead of ice-water, for example) I WANT to replace your window, either myself or by paying somebody else to do it.
This is NOT meant as a metaphor. I'm totally forgiven. But I think many, including the person picking up shards of glass from the carpet would think that that forgiveness (a) doesn't wipe out every debt, (b) actually prompts me to pay my debts.
So if you're with me so far, where does that fit in to the whole schema?
What do you make of the deal with Matthias? I think, under possible correction, we'd take that as precedent for the whole "passing on" thing.
Just thought I'd toss that into the blender. Note that it has that mutual indwelling stuff that Cranmer put in the Eucharistic prayer.
And all the little ones are born guilty? Or just some?
Yeah, well, somewhere in the Bible (you choose to ignore) it says God created man in His image and likeness, and gave him dominion.
Try reconciling conflicting statements in the Bible rather than selectively quoting only those thing you happen to agree with, or judging someonen else.
Speaking of which, as to whether I have (legitimate) doubts that the Bible is a pristine word of God, is really not your concern. Pick the logs out of your own eyes before you start picking someone else's.
And from what I understand from your postings, you pay more attention to more of the Bible than most of your Protestant brethren.
Where the Gospels speak; where the Lord speaks, that is the pinnacle of the Bible. Where St. Paul or the others speak, in apparent contradiction of the Gospel, since there is no Biblical contradiction, they must be interpreted in the light of the Gospels.
Sts. Peter and Paul are NOT our Saviours. Jesus is. And what He has to say is absolutely the most important.
And, regardless of personal theology or distaste, Matt 16:19, and Matt 18:18 exist and exist very clearly. We are commanded to do as He instructed us. If we do not, then we are not following His instructions and can hardly claim to be one of the elect hmmm?
Ah, but you see, we Catholics more than any other group do embrace the whole Bible.
As I posted previously, one must look at the words of Jesus as the pinnacle, the top, the absolutely most important words that ever existed. I have exchanged here with individuals who have built their entire personal theologies on St. Paul - more specifically on 1 and 2 Cor.
I have met Campbellites that have firmly and sternly instructed me to pay attention only to Luke and Acts. I have seen the Herbert W. Armstrong crowd that only sees Revelation as relevant.
We discount nothing. But I’d like to know if anyone here puts James on a par with Jesus. Or puts anyone from the OT on a par with Jesus. Or says things that trump His words.
I’d go with: The ones with colic are born guilty.
Please forgive me for continuing on in this vein, but I would really like to know more about earthly punishment for sins.
FK: I give you scriptures and my theology is built on the totality of God's inspired word. Scriptures should be interpreted through other scriptures, rather than anyone declaring that favored sections are right and disfavored sections are wrong
He also quotes from the Old Testament to show that it has been misinterpreted. And the author of Hebrews tells us that the Old Covenant has been rendered obsolete because Israel corrupted it.
St. Paul's entire ministry is based on demonstrating the incomplete understanding of what saves (grace, not the law). No one is saying other parts are "wrong," FK. Christ said He came to fulfill, and not to abolish. The New Covenant expressed in the Gospels is not a replacement but a perfection of the Old. Christ re-interprets (in the correct spirit) the sabbath, eye-for-an-eye, etc. and other laws.
It is in the spirit of the Gospels that we must interpret the rest because the Gospels reflect Christ's full revelation of God to men in the divine economy.
Our Christian faith is meaningless without the Gospels. The Gospels define Christianity. The same cannot be said of any other section of the Bible. The Gospels are the mind and the heart of Jesus.
Pure speculation on your part. You have no proof whatsoever that God has any use for you.
I’d really like to know what confession means and of what use it is under non Catholic theology, especially to a Reformed.
Is is yet another mechanical exercise, entirely without meaning, like prayer?
And, isn't that because God wanted it that way from the beginning?
Why, thank you Kolo and Alex. Allegorical and prophetic nature of the Transfiguration explains the eppearance of Moses.
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.