Posted on 01/27/2008 7:56:14 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
Wellll before Paul being named Saul most definitely 'contradicted' Christ... But after Saul then named Paul attention was gotten on his way to Damascus, there is NO way that Paul would have been allowed to pen most of the New Testament were he to be contradicting Christ.
Christ told Nidocemus that to see the Kingdom of God one must be born from above.... NOT the word that some scribe or translator place *again*. Meaning for a soul to be given opportunity of ever receiving 'grace' that soul must of their own free will come through woman into a flesh body.
There were some 'souls' also called Sons of God, or fallen angels etc that left their habitation and refused to be born of woman into flesh bodies that bunch has already been sentenced to death.
The when of the creation of the souls is very KEY to understanding the role the devil played, then and what role the devil will play again and the reason for flesh bodies to have been formed ....
So, then, you are forced to be a Christian?
With the gift, no leap is necessary
God offers; He doesn't force it upon you. Gifts can be turned down. You don't have to accept. You accept because you have made up your mind.
We are faced with the dilemma as to what created all this. We have no proof either way. One choice is God. Those who accept that God created all this made a leap of faith. But that decision does not constitutte proof that what created all this is indeed God.
Truly, one cannot say something is random in the system when he doesn't know what the system "is." Man does not know and indeed, can never know, the full extent and type of dimensions (temporal and spatial) that exist. Thus the claim that we are the result of "pure, blind chance" is a statement of atheistic "faith."
Man is not the measure of God.
FK, God "...causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous" [Mat 5:45]. God is impertial. It is the people, some who love God and others who don't. Those who come to Him are saved; those who don't are lost.
And yes, we also have missionaries in Israel
Here is a excerpt from a 1997 CNN article:
Seems to me they are not making a very good impression.
I'm not sure how many people "like" Israel for eschatological reasons. I've never thought of it like that. I like Israel because they are an anchor of democracy in a troubled part of the world and I also agree with them that they have a right to exist.
The Eangelicals don't even hide that they are interested in Israel for eschatological reasons. Other's speak of the Jews as "God's people." And the rest of humanity is what? God's refuse?
Israel is a democracy and that's good, but it has been anything but a stabilizing factor. While I certainly think Israel has a right to exist for humanitarian reasons, that state was proclaimed in violation of the UN Charter and international law. It was created by ethinic cleansing of Arab areas, sending hundreds of thousands of local Arabs into exile. Illegitimacy never becomes legitimate, especially not by illegitimate means.
Excellent point, He cannot. Regardless of what His actual experience of being "pleased" is, it has to be SOMETHING close to our ability to understand or He wouldn't have mentioned it so much in His word. Plus, a personal God MEANS that He has the ability to be pleased.
Sure, if it is a part of His plan. For an extreme example, I'm sure it has happened that God caused someone's foot to itch such that he scratched it, thereby delaying the person from putting on his shoes to go out on an errand by a few seconds. Those few seconds of delay wound up meaning the difference between life and death in a car accident that was barely avoided by just a few seconds. In all honesty, that does not sound crazy to me at all.
Does He make you think bad thoughts too?
If by "bad thoughts" you mean sinful thoughts, then NO, He does not do that. God does not force anyone to sin. The Bible says that God does not tempt anyone.
Your eye color is a product of your ancestral DNA based on simple Mendelian genetics. I don't think it matters one bit what color your eyes or skin or hair are; none of them makes you Christ-like.
You underestimate how much God loves us. I said in an earlier post that my eye color could not possibly be a result of chance since green is my wife's favorite color for eyes. I know for a FACT that God brought my wife and me together. Praise and glory be to Him for doing so. :)
What exactly do Southern Baptists say about dinosaur bones?
Nothing, officially. I don't have any across-the-board numbers, but just in my own church there are plenty of young-earthers and plenty of old-earthers.
And FK also said this...
“”No, I think I know pretty well what I'm saying, and that is, satan IS a cause of evil AND that God planned that he be so.””
Allow me break this down to simplicity for you Dear Brother,since I am a simple person.
If God planned satan and evil,than satan and evil happened according to God's will.Therefore the CAUSE of satan and evil is the will of God,thus there would be no need for Him to ordain His own plan. Thus satan could not have acted freely because it would have thwarted the plan of God for the need of evil in the world.
Lord have Mercy on those who teach such things!
I would like to know how you would try preach Christianity to the Jews by telling them that God “planned” for Hitler to kill millions of Jews?
Reformed theology is very similar to dualism
If they love that verse to show an untruth then it just means they are ignoring the totality of scripture. The totality of scripture shows over and over that the Son and the Father are equally God. But even within this verse, the context is that Jesus is referring to His (then) current condition, that of a suffering servant. He is comparing that to His returning to His glory in Heaven, i.e. a greater condition. Jesus said and did plenty of things that we would think of as "un-God like". We have to put them in the context that He was fully God AND fully human.
The OT is what it is: foreshadowing of Christianity. It is not Christianity. Without the OT, you would still have Christianity if all you had were the NT.
False. Without the OT you would have New Testamentism, but NOT Christianity. Jesus certainly cared about the OT and quoted from it often. He also upheld the Law given in the OT. Jesus admonished those who did not know the OT, and so I want to follow Jesus by believing that the OT is important and has relevance to our Christianity today.
Without the NT you would never come to Christianity.
It's true we probably wouldn't come to Christianity as we know it, however, we could have still come to salvation as the OT righteous knew it.
The two Testaments are not equivalent ...
Of course they are not equivalent in content, but they ARE equivalent in truth.
No, FK, it's what the OT says God did, such as kill David's child. Now we have God doing what Jesus would not have done!
That's right and is my whole point. Christ said over and over that He came to do what? His own will? NO, but the will of His Father FOR Him. All of us, including Jesus have different paths in righteousness. The path for Jesus, and ultimately with most of the Apostles, was to die a martyr's death. However, for the vast majority of us that is not our path. That doesn't make us wrong! :)
Obviously, the authors of the OT did not see Christ in their visions; they saw something closer to Zeus or Allah.
Of course they saw Christ in their visions. Christ was all over the OT. You may not recognize it because you have already decided for yourself on what the parameters of Christ (God) are.
Sure, if it is a part of His plan. For an extreme example, I'm sure it has happened that God caused someone's foot to itch such that he scratched it, thereby delaying the person from putting on his shoes to go out on an errand by a few seconds. Those few seconds of delay wound up meaning the difference between life and death in a car accident that was barely avoided by just a few seconds
I hope you realize there is nothing factual in this. It's no different than believeing in pink unicorns on Jupiter.
What I get from the Bible is that God wants us to be virtous, rational and merciful beings. Anything short of that is a failure of our intended purpose. It has to do with how we live, how we act and what we do and think. He made us capable of that, with His help of course.
The Reformed seem to believe in robots who are shuffeld around in some big chess game God is playing against Himself. What you are describing above is a fairytale.
Does He make you think bad thoughts too?
If by "bad thoughts" you mean sinful thoughts, then NO, He does not do that. God does not force anyone to sin.
I knew that was coming! God is in full control, fully sovereign, except when it comes to sin. Then He relinquishes His control. And while He forces us to sin by His irresitible will and "plan," we are the ones who are "sinning" according to the Reformed theology.
The Bible says that God does not tempt anyone
Right, but the way your side interprets it is that He uses others to temp us, as in the book of Job. He has created a suitable tempter (ha-satan) to do the dirty for. In fact, the OT is full of exmaples where God sends His angels to do the killing and forcing...
You underestimate how much God loves us
I do? Sounds just a tad bit presumptious, don't you think? You know that for a fact? Gee, you must have some "inside" information. :)
I said in an earlier post that my eye color could not possibly be a result of chance since green is my wife's favorite color for eyes.
Do you realize how many other women in this world think of it as their favorite color?
I know for a FACT [sic] that God brought my wife and me together
You know the first thing that comes to my mind when I see such a sweeping generalization is "prove it," but I won't say that because it is your private matter. Suffice it to say that, as far as I am concerned, it is yet another extraodinary claim that lacks extraordinary proof. The only evidence we have is that people make such claims based on some "inner knowledge" (gnosis) and claim it as "fact."
Kosta: What exactly do Southern Baptists say about dinosaur bones?
FK: Nothing, officially.
Is the silence simply convenient or too hot of a potato to handle? What about the Neanderthal bones?
I think you skipped the part containing the text. :) First, there is a plain statement on how we are saved. That is followed by a qualifier just to make sure no one misunderstands how we are saved. (So much for that idea! :) Finally, works are put into the correct context, that is, God created us in part for them, but they have nothing to do with salvation per the sentences just before. You do not seem to be able to reconcile the plain and obvious meaning of "not by works".
Eph. 2:10 says "FOR" we "are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do." You seem to think this is a controlling and contradictory substitution for the erroneous verse 8. I see it as an addition to verse 8, not contradicting what was earlier said. Verse 8 already said what saves us.
If they love that verse to show an untruth then it just means they are ignoring the totality of scripture. The totality of scripture shows over and over that the Son and the Father are equally God
Funny how standards change! When it's sutable, we stick to one-liners. When it doesn't then we appeal to the "totality of the scriptures."
Shall I remind you that we had a little discussion about Enoch (#5296), where I asked where does it say in OT that he died and you quote Heb 11:5.
When I remarked that it not only makes no other references to the OT (where the whole thing originated), but that the OT actually says that God took Enoch and he "was no more," you answered:
Well, John 14:28 is also scripture, standalone and is plain and easy to understand, and you don't believe it. Double standards? Pick and choose?
As far as the totality of the scriptures is concerned, Jesus is quoted as saying on another occasion that the Father is greater than all, so it corroborates John 14:28's statement.
Where does the Bible say that Jesus is equal to the Father?
So, the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament would lead us to believe what? In Zeus? The fact is the OT does not lead anyone to believe in a Christ-like God, otherwise the Jews would have accepted Christ as their Messiah.
Jesus certainly cared about the OT and quoted from it often. He also upheld the Law given in the OT. Jesus admonished those who did not know the OT, and so I want to follow Jesus by believing that the OT is important and has relevance to our Christianity today
It's important and has relevance but it is not defining. It is the ground prepared for the Church. But the truths quoted from the OT would have still been valid had they been stated as such in the Gospels. You seem to have no problem accepting the statement in Heb 11:5 even though it has no OT counterpart. So, here again we see man-made rules as to what is true and what isn't.
Then why was Christ necessary?
The path for Jesus, and ultimately with most of the Apostles, was to die a martyr's death. However, for the vast majority of us that is not our path. That doesn't make us wrong!
Of course not. Otherwise we would have but a handful in churches, and the clergy would be poor. Don't you now, the faith proclaimed in the NT is supposed to be "feel good" and "cozy!" But that's not what the Book you believe in says. Let's see what it does say:
In fact there are dozens of examples, especially in 1 Peter, where the suffering of Christ is the way we must follow, but of course this part of the Bible is overlooked for practical purposes...
"Therefore, since Christ has suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same purpose, because he who has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin" [1 Pet 4:1]
I have already told you that the example of Crist found in the OT (as per the link you provided) I disagree with, but it would take up too much bandwidth to discuss; perhaps that might be a good topic on another forum.
Let's just say that such comparisons are first of all few and far in between given the volume of the Bible, and secondly that they are not obvious, but must be "extracted" and implied throught rationalizations.
Even if the authors of the OT did come to know God as Chirst (more like a vague idea), that represents a few dozen people maximum compared to the whole nation of Israel. Doesn't seem very effictive to me. In fact, the whole Old Covenant failed on the ground becase, essentially, the Jews rejected it. They started going back to their faith after the Babylonian captivity, almost a millennium after Moses, and they still didnt get it.
Third, and most importantly, I didn't decide the parameters of Christ. The Gospels do. For some reason, the one part of the Bible where God is present among us your side seems to treat as less than what it is, and puts it on an equal footing with, say Samuel or Kings, or Jude, etc.
Because the other scriptures say something else about Enoch, i.e. he "was no more." It is the non-scriputre (Talmud) that says he never died.
"Was no more" is perfectly consistent with being taken up without dying. Hebrews is plain as day and is scripture and says he never died.
FK: "It is scripture, and it is plain and easy to understand. So, I believe it."
Good for you. Jude also quotes the Book of Enoch as scripture. Does that mean you consider the Book of Enoch scripture too?
No, since scripture does not authenticate the Book of Enoch as being God-breathed. Hebrews is so authenticated.
If you say so. I think any reasonable person would interpret that as meaning that person was dead. Also, the phrase "God took him" is likewise an allegory for saying.
The Septuagint states (Gen 5:24), with my emphases:
Yet the Hebrew Bible simply states verse 24 with four words (one is a repeat):
or, literally "Enoch walked God God took"
How does one come up with a whole sentence with that is beyond me.
More importantly, John 3:13 states
Either +John didn't know about Enoch or he didn 't read it as the author of Hebrews did.
Also according to Genesis, Enoch is the sixth generation of Adam; but in another place he is placed in the seventh:
So, we have genealogical problems...again (like those of Matthew and Luke)?
In addition, Romans 5:12 and Hebrews 9:27 say that everyone must die.
So when you say that Enoch is a stand-alone statement and you believe it because it is scripture, you choose to ignore a whole lot of scripture to the contrary.
No, since scripture does not authenticate the Book of Enoch as being God-breathed. Hebrews is so authenticated
Jude is quoting from the Book of Enoch and Jude is scripture, FK. Or is it not scripture on Thursdays?
Sould read: Also, the phrase "God took him" is likewise an allegory for saying "he died."
Are you saying that we use our free will to decide to pass through the birth canal? Are you saying that the unborn in utero do not have flesh bodies?
It depends on what you mean by "forced". If "forced" means anything other than using my inner goodness to be smart enough to decide for myself what was in my own best interest, then yes, I was forced. If, however, God is permitted to change the hearts of His created elect such that they will freely come to and choose Christ, then no, I wasn't forced.
God offers; He doesn't force it upon you. Gifts can be turned down. You don't have to accept. You accept because you have made up your mind.
That depends on how good the gift is. There are such things as gifts that are so good no one would ever turn them down. Salvational grace is like that.
You are talking about common grace, not salvational grace. They are different. Otherwise, then explain your verse here as against Jesus only praying for believers.
[Concerning missionary work in Israel] Here is a excerpt from a 1997 CNN article: ........... Seems to me they are not making a very good impression.
Oh, it is definitely not work for the faint of heart. We even had the ADL calling us all sorts of names as seen in this article: ADL condemns Southern Baptist affiliation with 'messianic' group. It isn't easy, but we are still trying. I had no trouble coming up with several anecdotal articles on specific mission trips to Israel.
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.