Posted on 01/27/2008 7:56:14 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
What are you talking about? Who is "they?"
KOSTA50 SAID:
I am not opposed to Mark 16:17-18. I am simply asking where are those signs the verse speak of as a promise to the believers?!
= = = =
How often are those signs in your local congregation and to what extent . . .
i.e.
How often in terms of times per service or some such?
How dramatically?
How miraculously?
Then one would expect that all believers would be in harmony.
Well, on the MOST important core beliefs in Christianity, all true believers ARE in harmony. It might be a short list, but I assume you would agree that there are SOME things that must be believed for a person to be a true Christian believer.
FK: ***There are simply varying results, within time, according to God’s plan. It is a virtual certainty that both of us are wrong in some, or even several, of our interpretations.***
How can the Holy Spirit be wrong?
Of course I didn't say or imply that. We know from common experience that people get it wrong, sometimes often, sometimes on an institutional level. Holy Spirit does not teach error, but He does teach on His own time table. Foundations can be set, with greater understanding added later. For example, earlier I followed OSAS and then I was showed the superior doctrine of POTS. OSAS CAN be interpreted in a way that is perfectly correct, but I didn't know what that was at the time. POTS encompasses more of the totality of scriptures. In none of this is Holy Spirit ever wrong.
***You are equating the foreknowledge of God with the man’s act of disobedience. Adam didn’t have to sin; he chose to sin. ***
Fact - God created a tree in the garden
Fact - God told Adam not to eat of the tree or he would die
Fact - God therefore established the ability to sin and the consequences of sin
Fact - God set the rules for man
Fact - Man broke the rules
Fact - Man sinned because God provided the opportunity, the ability, and the consequences
Fact - God knew ahead of time that man would sin
Fact - God set in motion BEFORE THE CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE the whole plan of salvation
Fact - I like writng the word FACT
Fact - you are now bored with this
This line of argument was particularly interesting:
Also, as a technical point, one cannot say something is random in the system when he does not know what the system "is." And science does not know and can never know the number and types of dimensions (spatial or temporal.)
So when one observes that anything in the physical creation is "random" he is making a statement of faith per se.
***Likewise, true believers rest upon the promises of God.***
I don’t believe that can be said enough.
Trusting God’s promises is the essence of faith.
Thanks again.
***Also, as a technical point, one cannot say something is random in the system when he does not know what the system “is.” And science does not know and can never know the number and types of dimensions (spatial or temporal.)***
Excellent point. I think Van Til called them both radical indeterminists and flaming determinists both at the same time. While they accept the “possibility” of anything they only believe what they know by their own experience.
Also, as a technical point, one cannot say something is random in the system when he does not know what the system “is.” And science does not know and can never know the number and types of dimensions (spatial or temporal.)
So when one observes that anything in the physical creation is “random” he is making a statement of faith per se.
= = =
Absolutely.
Have often said something similar over the decades. Sadly, the dogmatic faith in scientism is so entrenched, rigid, narrow . . . biased . . . the listeners often cannot even fathom the statement . . . just does not compute for them . . . goes in one ear, sails through clear air and out the other . . . and they just keep spouting the same religious-of-scientism dogma that is totally blown out of the water by the one fact you stated so simply, clearly and accurately.
Thx as ever.
Your tagline about the human mind being a perpetual forge of idols is soooooooooooo incredibly true.
It boggles my mind that the RC edifice reps construe themselves and all RC’s as immune from that humanness! LOL.
All the worse given the edifice’s ENCOURAGEMENTS to forge such “KOSHER” idols . . . labeled, of course, otherwise.
. . . as though labels and rationalizations fooled God.
The Reformers are the only self described Christians posting here that claim that their actions and beliefs are guided, influenced and directed by the indwelling Holy Spirit. That is Gnosticism.
We claim what the Bible teaches:
Gal 5:16-25 : 16 So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. 17 For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.
19 The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24 Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. 25 Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit.
Now, how do you suppose that we "live by the Spirit" or "keep in step with the Spirit" if the Spirit does not lead us in a substantial way? It's impossible. However, if one is taught to reject this teaching, then one alternative would be to "live by the Church" and "keep in step with the Church". Since I don't see anything about the hierarchy of the Church in this passage I will just have to assume it is another Bible passage that is wrong (or terribly misinterpreted). Hmmm. Again, man is elevated and God is diminished.
So who are they that He has created that are not His children? His dogs? His cats? His hamsters? His rotifers? His algae?
God told us plainly about the subset of all people who are His children. Those who are not His children are all the rest. For example:
Luke 20:34-36 : 34 Jesus replied, "The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. 35 But those who are considered worthy of taking part in that age and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, 36 and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God's children , since they are children of the resurrection.
John 1:12-13 : 12 Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.
John 11:49-53 : 49 Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up, "You know nothing at all! 50 You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish." 51 He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, 52 and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one. 53 So from that day on they plotted to take his life.
John 13:33 : "My children , I will be with you only a little longer. You will look for me, and just as I told the Jews, so I tell you now: Where I am going, you cannot come.
Rom 8:16-17 : 16 The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children . 17 Now if we are children , then we are heirs — heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.
There are more of course, but I think this makes the point. In every single case, there is a distinction between some who are God's children and some who are not. There can be no confusion. That the saved are God's children, and the lost are not is a theme running throughout the NT. There are just too many verses to interpret that idea away.
BTW, I went rotifer fishing once, and caught me a big one too. He must have come in at just over 0.7 mm or so. :)
Irish: Could, yes. Will? No, because God wouldn’t allow me to do it. His Holy Spirit, which resides in me, will not allow such a thing. I wouldn’t even want to try. I couldn’t contemplate me even wanting to. But, if all my sins are covered by the blood of Jesus, then ALL my sins are covered by the blood of Jesus. Every single one of them. Those I did, those I do now, and those I will do in the future.
Yes, that's a good way to put it. Well done. :)
Mark, from your above I infer that you think that if someone did all those things that he would be barred from Heaven, is that right? But, what if someone did all those things and then really repented and asked the forgiveness of a priest after convincing him that he was sincere? Wouldn't that person be just fine and saved in the Church's eyes at that point? I mean, at least until he committed the least mortal sin after that? IOW, are you saying that there is a "sin threshold" (not involving the Spirit) after which one crosses he cannot be saved no matter what a priest does on his behalf? I've never heard of that.
Irish, and Quix, and I are all saying that Christ died for all of our sins, past, present and future. That gives His death real meaning and worth. Consider these:
Luke 19:10 : For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost."
1 Tim 1:15 : Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners — of whom I am the worst.
Now, these both say that Christ came to save, but did He really? We would say YES, that's exactly what He came to do, AND He did it! However, I think that your side doesn't see it that way at all. For you Christ actually saved no one, He only made it possible for men to cooperate and finish the job that Christ didn't/couldn't finish by saving themselves. Which victory for Christ has more meaning, the one where He does it all, or the one where He passes the buck? :)
Mark: And by extension, nothing is forbidden.
Ah, a tempting idea indeed. However, we thank God that He addressed that very issue through Paul:
Rom 6:1-10 : 1 What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2 By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3 Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.
5 If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection. 6 For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin— 7 because anyone who has died has been freed from sin.
8 Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9 For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. 10 The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God.
So, as you can see, since we claim to be Bible-believing Christians, we could not possibly hold to the view that you project onto us. The old self, which might do those horrible things you listed earlier, was CRUCIFIED with Christ and he no longer lives, but Christ lives within us. The death Christ died, He died to sin once and for all, and the elect along with Him.
Therefore, there is no extension, as you suggest. Paul covers it exactly and completely, and we believe that Paul was correct.
Dogma is a very good word for it. You might enjoy this article:
Abstract — The notion that a scientific idea cannot be considered intellectually respectable until it has first appeared in a "peer" reviewed journal did not become widespread until after World War II. Copernicus's heliocentric system, Galileo's mechanics, Newton's grand synthesis -- these ideas never appeared first in journal articles. They appeared first in books, reviewed prior to publication only by their authors, or by their authors' friends. Even Darwin never submitted his idea of evolution driven by natural selection to a journal to be judged by "impartial" referees. Darwinism indeed first appeared in a journal, but one under the control of Darwin's friends. And Darwin's article was completely ignored. Instead, Darwin made his ideas known to his peers and to the world at large through a popular book: On the Origin of Species. I shall argue that prior to the Second World War the refereeing process, even where it existed, had very little effect on the publication of novel ideas, at least in the field of physics. But in the last several decades, many outstanding physicists have complained that their best ideas -- the very ideas that brought them fame -- were rejected by the refereed journals. Thus, prior to the Second World War, the refereeing process worked primarily to eliminate crackpot papers. Today, the refereeing process works primarily to enforce orthodoxy. I shall offer evidence that "peer" review is NOT peer review: the referee is quite often not as intellectually able as the author whose work he judges. We have pygmies standing in judgment on giants. I shall offer suggestions on ways to correct this problem, which, if continued, may seriously impede, if not stop, the advance of science.
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.