Posted on 01/27/2008 7:56:14 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
January 25, 2008
ESV Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
In recent days I have spent time in Lima and Sullana Peru and Mexico City and I have discovered that people by nature are the same. Man has a heart that is inclined to selfishness and idolatry. Sin abounds in the remotest parts of the land because the heart is desperately wicked. Thousands bow before statues of Mary and pray to her hoping for answers. I have seen these people stare hopelessly at Mary icons, Jesus icons, and a host of dead saints who will do nothing for them. I have talked with people who pray to the pope and say that they love him. I talked with one lady who said that she knew that Jesus was the Savior, but she loved the pope. Thousands bow before Santa Muerte (holy death angel) in hopes that she will do whatever they ask her. I have seen people bring money, burning cigarettes, beer, whiskey, chocolate, plants, and flowers to Santa Muerte in hopes of her answers. I have seen these people bowing on their knees on the concrete in the middle of public places to worship their idol. Millions of people come into the Basilica in Mexico City and pay their money, confess their sins, and stare hopelessly at relics in hope that their sins will be pardoned. In America countless thousands are chained to baseball games, football games, material possessions, and whatever else their heart of idols can produce to worship.
My heart has broken in these last weeks because the God of heaven is not honored as he ought to be honored. People worship the things that are created rather than worshiping the Creator. God has been gracious to all mankind and yet mankind has hardened their hearts against a loving God. God brings the rain on the just and unjust. God brings the beautiful sunrises and sunsets upon the just and unjust. God gives good gifts unto all and above all things he has given his Son that those who would believe in him would be saved. However, man has taken the good things of God and perverted them unto idols and turned their attention away from God. I get a feel for Jesus as he overlooked Jerusalem or Paul as he beseeched for God to save Israel. When you accept the reality of the truth of the glory of God is breaks your heart that people would turn away from the great and awesome God of heaven to serve lesser things. Moses was outraged by the golden calf, the prophets passionately preached against idolatry, Jesus was angered that the temple was changed in an idolatrous business, and Paul preached to the idolaters of Mars Hill by telling them of the unknown God.
I arrived back at home wondering how I should respond to all the idolatry that I have beheld in these last three weeks. I wondered how our church here in the states should respond to all of the idolatry in the world. What are the options? First, I suppose we could sit around and hope that people chose to get their life together and stop being idolaters. However, I do not know how that could ever happen apart from them hearing the truth. Second, I suppose we could spend a lifetime studying cultural issues and customs in hope that we could somehow learn to relate to the people of other countries. However, the bible is quite clear that all men are the same. Men are dead in sin, shaped in iniquity, and by nature are the enemies of God. Thirdly, we could pay other people or other agencies to go and do a work for us while we remain comfortably in the states. However, there is no way to insure that there will be doctrinal accuracy or integrity. If we only pay other people to take the gospel we will miss out on all of the benefits of being obedient to the mission of God. Lastly, we could seek where God would have us to do a lasting work and then invest our lives there for the glory of God. The gospel has the power to raise the dead in any culture and we must be willing to take the gospel wherever God would have us take it. It is for sure that our church cannot go to every country and reach every people group, so we must determine where God would have us work and seek to be obedient wherever that is.
It seems that some doors are opening in the Spanish speaking countries below us and perhaps God is beginning to reveal where we are to work. There are some options for work to be partnered with in Peru and there could be a couple of options in Mexico. The need is greater than I can express upon this paper for a biblical gospel to be proclaimed in Peru and Mexico. Oh, that God would glorify his great name in Peru and Mexico by using a small little church in a town that does not exist to proclaim his great gospel amongst a people who desperately need the truth.
I give thanks to the LORD for allowing me the privilege of going to these countries and broadening my horizons. The things that I have seen will be forever engraved upon my heart. I will long remember the pastors that I spent time with in Peru and I will never forget Adolfo who translated for me in Mexico. I will relish the time that I spent with Paul Washer and the others. When I think of church I will forever remember being on top of that mountain in Sullana at that church which had no electricity and no roof. I am convinced that heaven was looking down on that little church on top of that mountain and very few people on earth even know that it exist. Oh, God I pray that the things of this world will continue to grow dim and that God’s people will be caught up in his glorious presence.
Because of the truth: Pastor: J. Randall Easter II Timothy 2:19 "Our God is in heaven and does whatever He pleases."(Ps. 115:3) "He predestined us according to the good pleasure of His will."(Eph. 1:5) Those who have been saved have been saved for His glory and they are being made holy for this is the will of God. Are you being made holy? Spurgeon says, "If your religion does not make you holy it will damn you to hell."
Exactly!
Synergism is just second-nature to men since it gives them control of their own salvation, and who doesn't like control?
But salvation doesn't work that way, regardless of how much we protest it was all our idea. God elects whom He will; men receive saving grace according to His decree from before the foundation of the world.
Or else He's not God; he's just a conductor on the train, and not the engine itself.
It's difficult to give up our egocentric desire to be in control and instead realize it is all of God. But by reading the Bible, it can be done, God willing. As the great Puritan theologian of the English reformation, John Owen, said...
"To say that we are able by our own efforts to think good thoughts or give God spiritual obedience before we are spiritually regenerate is to overthrow the gospel and the faith of the universal church in all ages." ("The Holy Spirit" by John Owen) "To suppose that whatever God requireth of us that we have power of ourselves to do, is to make the cross and grace of Jesus Christ of none effect." (Works of John Owen: volume 3 pg. 433)
As is so often the case on these threads, in searching the internet for one thing we find another. Here's a wonderful excerpt from John Owen's book, "The Holy Spirit"...
...Spiritual darkness is in all men and lies on all men until God, by an almighty work of the Spirit, shines into men's hearts, or creates light in them (Matt 4:16; John 1:5; Act 26:18; Eph 5:8; Col 1:13; 1 Pet 2:9). ...The nature of this spiritual darkness must be understood. When men have no light to see by, then they are in darkness (Exod. 10:23). Blind men are in darkness, either by birth or by illness or accident (Psa. 69:23; Gen 19:11; Acts 13:11). A spiritually blind man is in spiritual darkness and is ignorant of spiritual things...""All men can be divided into two groups. They are either regenerate or unregenerate. All men are born unregenerate (John 3:3-8).
Paul and Gnostics would disagree with you, FK.
I'm not sure how one could possibly hold to Reformed principles without scripture
You mean without Paul?
A false repentance does not result in salvation any more than a false confession results in absolution
That's an oxymoron, FK. Confession is an audible expression of repentance. One repents in in his heart and voices that repentance in a confession.
It does not say this is possible since that would mean other scripture, especially from Christ, would be a lie
Especially from Christ? What about those who “believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away” (Luke 8:13)?
According to you they never believed...but Christ is quoted as saying otherwise.
[On Heb 10:36-38]...Paul is saying in verse 39 that we are not like that "impossible hypothetical that I just gave to you".
Paul? Paul wrote Hebrews? And your quote is not what the Bible says: there is no "hypothetical." You are making this up.
The NIV which you use says "39. But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who believe and are saved."
Try me. :) I consider objective arguments. It's just when they morph into pink unicorns on Jupiter based on faith alone that I begin to disregard such "objective" arguments.
God specifically ordered certain people to commit massacres at specific times
Like that psycho who drowned her five children? Anyone can make such a claim, especially when it is politically desirable or when you need a divine "justification" for your conquests, crimes, whatever.
I ACCEPT God's word. I do not hold it up to needing to pass my test of what I think is right and wrong
But your acceptance that it is God's word is based on your own conviction, as it is that the Koran is not. Muslims would believe just the opposite. It all defaults to us individually. Maybe one day you will realize that the world starts with us and that what is true to us is not necessarily the objective truth.
Kosta: Doesn't the OT imply that massacres are "just" if they are Theopneumatos (God-breathed)?!?
FK: I don't think it implies it at all...
Oh yeah? I think it makes it very clear that they are "just" because they were God-inspired. That's not what Jesus taught, however. John the Baptist maybe would have, but not Jesus.
God contacts me every day, but not like that
Really? Why would that be necessary if there is an "indwelling Spirit" inside of you? Isn't that presence always "on?"
To God be the glory, not man, never man!
***I don’t think the Bible says it went down that way. For one thing Pilate DID find Jesus guilty of “something”:
Luke 23:22 : 22 For the third time he spoke to them: “Why? What crime has this man committed? I have found in him no grounds for the death penalty. Therefore I will have him punished and then release him.”***
Why don’t we look at the whole of Luke 23?
Luke
Chapter 23
1
1 Then the whole assembly of them arose and brought him before Pilate.
2
They brought charges against him, saying, “We found this man misleading our people; he opposes the payment of taxes to Caesar and maintains that he is the Messiah, a king.”
3
Pilate asked him, “Are you the king of the Jews?” He said to him in reply, “You say so.”
4
Pilate then addressed the chief priests and the crowds, “I find this man not guilty.”
5
But they were adamant and said, “He is inciting the people with his teaching throughout all Judea, from Galilee where he began even to here.”
6
2 On hearing this Pilate asked if the man was a Galilean;
7
and upon learning that he was under Herod’s jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod who was in Jerusalem at that time.
8
Herod was very glad to see Jesus; he had been wanting to see him for a long time, for he had heard about him and had been hoping to see him perform some sign.
9
He questioned him at length, but he gave him no answer.
10
The chief priests and scribes, meanwhile, stood by accusing him harshly.
11
(Even) Herod and his soldiers treated him contemptuously and mocked him, and after clothing him in resplendent garb, he sent him back to Pilate.
12
Herod and Pilate became friends that very day, even though they had been enemies formerly.
13
Pilate then summoned the chief priests, the rulers, and the people
14
and said to them, “You brought this man to me and accused him of inciting the people to revolt. I have conducted my investigation in your presence and have not found this man guilty of the charges you have brought against him,
15
nor did Herod, for he sent him back to us. So no capital crime has been committed by him.
16
Therefore I shall have him flogged and then release him.”
17
3
18
But all together they shouted out, “Away with this man! Release Barabbas to us.”
19
(Now Barabbas had been imprisoned for a rebellion that had taken place in the city and for murder.)
20
Again Pilate addressed them, still wishing to release Jesus,
21
but they continued their shouting, “Crucify him! Crucify him!”
22
Pilate addressed them a third time, “What evil has this man done? I found him guilty of no capital crime. Therefore I shall have him flogged and then release him.”
23
With loud shouts, however, they persisted in calling for his crucifixion, and their voices prevailed.
24
The verdict of Pilate was that their demand should be granted.
25
So he released the man who had been imprisoned for rebellion and murder, for whom they asked, and he handed Jesus over to them to deal with as they wished.
Pilate found Jesus guilty of nothing. He merely acceded to the the highly agitated Jewish religious authorities. Even Herod found Jesus guilty of nothing.
Pilate found himself in a bad situation and decided that if the nasty rebellious Jews would be pacified by trading one person for another, it was no skin off his Roman nose.
It does not say that any Jewish council found him guilty.
Luke 22:
63
The men who held Jesus in custody were ridiculing and beating him.
64
They blindfolded him and questioned him, saying, “Prophesy! Who is it that struck you?”
65
And they reviled him in saying many other things against him.
66
17 18 When day came the council of elders of the people met, both chief priests and scribes, and they brought him before their Sanhedrin.
67
They said, “If you are the Messiah, tell us,” but he replied to them, “If I tell you, you will not believe,
68
and if I question, you will not respond.
69
But from this time on the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the power of God.”
70
They all asked, “Are you then the Son of God?” He replied to them, “You say that I am.”
71
Then they said, “What further need have we for testimony? We have heard it from his own mouth.”
There were no formal judgements in council. Jesus was not found guilty of anything.
In order to even get onto the Way, we must receive the Spirit. What happens after that? Let’s look at the words of Jesus: [Matt. 25:31-46]
OK, if this passage is your answer to my question then I can only conclude that indeed you do think you will be deserving of Heaven if you have done enough good works by the time of Judgment. One is deserving of something if he has earned it. You do enough good works and then God owes you. It's like a contract.
***OK, if this passage is your answer to my question then I can only conclude that indeed you do think you will be deserving of Heaven if you have done enough good works by the time of Judgment. One is deserving of something if he has earned it. You do enough good works and then God owes you. It’s like a contract.***
I suppose that that is how one influenced by Calvin might read it. I see no contract; I see that we have responsibility to act in certain ways.
Matt 25:
He will place the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34
Then the king will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
35
For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me,
36
naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.’
37
Then the righteous 16 will answer him and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink?
38
When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you?
39
When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?’
40
And the king will say to them in reply, ‘Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.’
Does this sound like a contract?
41
17 Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
42
For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink,
43
a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.’
44
18 Then they will answer and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?’
45
He will answer them, ‘Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.’
46
And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
How about this?
I am afraid that you are sadly mistaken, my friend. There is the love of the Creator to the created; there is the unconditional love that He gives us.
But He will Judge us based upon our actions. This is not a piece of verse taken from here and grafted onto verse taken from there and sprinkled with a partial verse from somewhere else.
These are the words of the Lord Jesus Christ and they are plain and direct. This is no parable; there is no possibility of unintentionally misunderstanding these words.
Either you accept this chapter or you do not. It is plain and it is spoken to the entire world.
Matt 24:
45
26 27 “Who, then, is the faithful and prudent servant, whom the master has put in charge of his household to distribute to them their food at the proper time?
46
Blessed is that servant whom his master on his arrival finds doing so.
47
Amen, I say to you, he will put him in charge of all his property.
48
28 But if that wicked servant says to himself, ‘My master is long delayed,’
49
and begins to beat his fellow servants, and eat and drink with drunkards,
50
the servant’s master will come on an unexpected day and at an unknown hour
51
and will punish him severely 29 and assign him a place with the hypocrites, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth.
Punishment is for misconduct. How can one be punished for something that one is not responsible for? Jesus says that one is given what one deserves.
I was saying that I see your view of Christ as being truncated because you do not recognize Him as an actor in the OT. It appears to me that you only recognize Him as an actor in His incarnate state. One who does so, IMO, misses the full revelation of God as it is given to us.
FK: The correct standard is the totality of scriptures, which reveal three distinct Persons.
But there is hypostatic union only in one Person of God, the only one who could be seen and grasped, imitated and followed.
Where is the union for you if you reject the OT God as portrayed? There is no union there. There is the erasing of the God who does things one doesn't like in favor of the one who does things you do like.
The Jews have a different image of a God, based on their "visions," and what not, which contains notions of Christ, but dimly. Look at what Jeremiah (32:40) has to say about God:
The OT God keeps the Jews to Himself, not by love, but by fear! Is that what Christ teaches His disciples?
This goes to having a Biblical understanding of what "fear of the Lord" means. You suggest that it is a very bad thing, when in truth it is a very good thing. Are you a God-fearing man? I am happy to say that I am, though I could always do better. To fear the Lord is to have understanding and wisdom. God said that He would give that to His people. This is actually a good verse in support of Reformed theology since it focuses away from anything man does for himself and goes toward what God does for us.
I guess when Jeremiah wrote this, the changing of the hearts wasn't "in" yet. God had to resort to fear to keep His people in line. LOL!
Actually, the books of Jeremiah and Ezekiel were very contemporary. Both were written around the time that Nebuchadnezzar sacked Jerusalem. So, the idea was around, and in fact Jeremiah is conveying that idea here. God said He would change their hearts to give them the good thing of fearing the Lord.
The Bible tells us of many individuals who didn't know Scriptures to whom it was committed to love God. One doesn't need Scriptures to love God. It seems to me that in your mind the Bible is the source of faith and love for God. More bibliolatry.
Jesus said the scriptures testify about Him, they help us KNOW Him.
Well, they announce the coming of the messiah, but it was not clear what He would be like, for the Jews believed it wold be a warior-king and not someone Christ-like. No one who knew the Scriptures recognized Christ from the Scriptures!
Do you believe that your extra-Biblical tradition is sufficient by itself to know God? For example, is it enough to know God through Mariology?
Extra-biblical tradition, according to whose biblical tradition? The 16th century renegade priest's? Or the Bible put together by Christ's own Apostolic Church 1,200 years earlier?
You cannot fully appreciate Christ without Mariology.
But wait, I think you have said that the only way to know God is through, in essence, the lines from Jesus' mouth in the Bible, however, that's STILL in the Bible. Isn't it your "job" to at least know those lines even if you "throw the rest of it out?"
I don't think I would have said that. We certainly can not know what was Jesus like on this earth without the Gospels.
And it's not my "job" to know the Bible. It is the job of those who were ordained to give that knowledge to others. Just as with the Ethiopian eunuch. And Christ makes that very clear when He says:
For the "job" of everyone in the Church is not to preach and teach, or to know the scriptures.
One can be an Arminian and be a Bible-believing Christian easily, but all those others you listed are clearly NOT Bible-believing Christians
Why, because their "bible" doesn't fit the man-made bible of Luther's? The Church established which books will be in the Bible and the Protestants rejected some and made their own. By your definition, none of the Protestants/Baptists could possibly be Bible-believing Christians since they don't use the Bible used by the original Church, which includes the so-called Apocryphal books and the Septuagint.
In other words, it's all what man's definition you are willing to accept as "true," that determines who is "Bible-believing" and who is not. If you deny the authority of the Church then anything goes.
Kosta: The amalgam of the so-called "Bible-believing" Christians includes people like LDS.
FK: No they are not, they have created their own Bible. You have been interacting with Bible-beliving Christians of different faiths, even the non-Reformed, for years
You just prove my point above. I have dealt with people who call themselves Bible-believing Christians but who also made up their own Bible. So, why should I treat these so-called Bible-believing Christians any different than the LDS?
None of them uses the Bible put together by the original Church.
Kosta: The Bible tells us that Jesus called for unity and not disunity.
FK:That's too broad a brush
I don't think so, FK. To be one as He and the Father are one is not really much of a wiggle room.
Sure there is only one truth, and God wants all believers headed toward that truth, but that doesn't mean that by His design He doesn't have different paths for us to get there.
He speaks only of one way, His way. And He even reminds us that the path is narrow, not broad.
He established HIS CHURCH, not one church of men lording its power over other Christians
Go back to Paul's 1 Cor 12:28 and read it again. No one says anyone was lording over other men; it merely says that God appointed different people to do different things in the Church.
He left the faith in the hands of others to carry on, but as to the faith itself, He left THAT in HIS OWN HANDS
The faith was delivered once and left in the hands of the Apostles and those who followed in their footsteps to safeguard.
Kosta: Obviously He never told everyone should read the Bible.
Oh, obviously. I'm sure in Christ's omniscience He thought "Yeah, some guys are gonna make this thing up to add to the other junk some dead guys made up, but NAW, people shouldn't read it.
Well, rant all you want. He never did say we should read the Bible. Rather He told the disciples they should teach all nations and baptize...again, Jesus did not conduct Bible study classes and feel-good sessions and discussions.
That's news. Josephus (1st century) writes about John as being perceived as a rebel rouser and associates his beheading with the fear form Herod that he would start a rebellion.
That's STYLE and I said their styles were different. Jesus consented to being baptized by John. Jesus COULD NOT have done that if John's preaching was substantively at odds with His own, any more than you would consent to being baptized in my church.
FK: If John's message was opposite to that of Jesus, then it could not "have fulfilled all righteousness" for John to baptize Him.
Why did baptizing Jesus "fulfill all the righteousness?" Christ did not need to be baptized nor was He any more just after that.
Jesus said this in Matt. 3:15. While it does not appear to correspond to any OT prophecy, one possibility would be that it set Christ apart in order to begin His ministry. Baptism marked Him to begin His ministry in order to fulfill all righteousness.
FK: Jesus calls him MORE than a prophet (Matt. 11:9)
What would that make him then? What is above a prophet if a prophet is a human being with whom God communicates and reveals His truths?
I suppose it would make him just what Jesus said:
Matt 11:11 : I tell you the truth: Among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist ; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
This is actually an interesting perspective regarding the actions of discernible persons in each age.
When Christ asked Peter who they said He was, Peter responded He was the Messiah. Christ then blessed him and indicated that had been revealed to Peter by the Father via Peter's faith.
This occurred during the age of the Hypostatic Union, prior to the Church Age. During the present Church Age, immediately upon acceptance of the Son by faith alone, God the Holy Spirit regenerates the human spirit and indwells the believer.
Today what is significant about the Scripture is the communication of the Word of God to the believer via the active ministry of God the Holy Spirit.
The difference between that age and this is that the believers of that day were imbued by the Holy Spirit, but not indwelled by the Holy Spirit. The Father revealed the Son to Peter in what I would understand to be the call and if earlier than Christ's query, a part of Peter's election (God the Father's Plan for a particular believer determined from eternity past for a believer).
Today, the believer is indwelled by God the Holy Spirit, an activity purely performed by the volition of God, not an experience on the behalf of the believer, but an action of God, providing a temple for the indwelling of the Son as well as the Father, which He performs so that He is able to continue tosanctify us continually by His Plan for each believer. As long as we remain in fellowship with Him, He is free to continue that sanctification process, not because of our power or authority, but because of His integrity to Perfect Holiness which demands Perfect Righteousness and Perfect Justice.
Now back to your comment regarding believers who knew the Scriptures. Prior to the age of the Hypostatic Union, the Incarnation of God in the Son, the age of Israel provided a temple for the Shechinah Glory in the physical building known as he temple or tabernacle (place for indwelling). The Jew came to know the Word (MEMRA) by the study of Scripture via the priesthood.
In the age of the Hypostatic Union, the Word was made flesh in the Son, and revealed directly in person of the Son to the believer. In this Church Age, a mystery prior to the New Testament, the Word is revealed to us by the ministry of God he Holy Spirit.
The Word, though, is not without effect. For those remaining in fellowship today, when they know the Word, He is revealed to the believer. In the Age of the Hypostatic Union, the believer who knew the Word, the Memra, was also able to recognize the Son, for He was the Word Incarnate. This might indicate that those believers who knew the Word, would recognize Him while they remained in fellowship with Him, but perhaps if they refused to recognize Him, actually manifest a falling out of fellowship or perhaps simply not in a state of believing (PISTIS/PISTEOU).
This might also reveal some interesting doctrine for us today in the Church Age.
Occasionally, somebody will say 'God spoke to me'. In this Chruch Age, that speaking might come from a particular person of God, probably the Son, who is able to speak through the ministry of God the Holy Spirit providing a temple in our bodies for His indwelling. Would the believer who rejects recognition of such a revelation of the Son today, be in the same state of unbelief as a student of Scripture in the age of the Hypostatic Union who failed to recognize God the Son as the Word?
FK : I was referring to this passage: 1 Cor 15:3-8 : 3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures 5 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
Dear Paul says a lot of things, but we know he wasn't there when it happened, so don't use him as a witness. There are other objections to this. First, according to what Scriptures did Christ die? And according to what Scriptures did was He raised [sic] on the third day? The only Scriptures in Paul's days was the OT, and I don't remember the OT saying the Son of God will die and "will be raised" (rather than will rise) on the third day.
Second, he says Christ first appeared to "Peter and then to the Twelve [sic]." What Twelve? At the Pentecost (Mat 28) there were still only eleven and some even doubted Jesus.
Third, who are all the apostles in verse 7? How many apostles were there at the time of the Resurrection? Obviosuly, if this is what Paul really wrote, then he sounds like he was confabulating, but then the Greeks of Corinth wouldn't have known the difference anyway!
So, you question whether Jesus was objectively dead according to scripture based on these flimsy hypotheticals?
Flimsy hypotheticals? LOL! Let's not go there, FK.
We have to be reasonable [sic] here. The Romans had an IMAGE to maintain. If you went up, you didn't come down alive. NO ONE DID. We have this: Mark 15:42-45
Reasonable when it comes to a priori faith? LOL! And the Christians didn't have an agenda?
From here you have to wholly invent that the centurion was lying or otherwise covering for Christ. There is ZERO evidence of this...There IS evidence in scripture
Where was Mark when all this happened? Was he with Pilate? Or maybe with Peter who was neither by the Cross nor next to Pilate? You call this hearsay evidence? LOL!
These Romans were not pansies, their rep was on the line. Neither were the Jews who were also motivated to prove all of this a lie. No, if this was a scam it would have been found out, but it wasn't.
Well, Christians also had an agenda and an image to defend. And there is no reason whatsoever to claim that every conspiracy must be discovered.
Too many people saw Him resurrected with their own eyes and lived MANY years to testify about it, as Paul tells us.
The Gospels do not corroborate this. That is something coming from Paul who wasn't there and who was talking to Greeks who knew exactly nothing about the Jews or their religion, laws and customs, or what happened. Most of the people who preached Christ crucified never saw Christ crucified. They believed the stories they heard from others that He was crucified and that he rose on the third day.
I thought the Gospels are the only way for you to know God
Without the Gospels we could never know Christ.
The Bible says that its own words will be nonsense to the lost, all logic and sense notwithstanding. To a believer, though, the Bible fits like a glove, consistent in both history and reason.
I couldn't have said it better. :) If I wanted to give myself any credibility and fence off any forthcoming criticism, I would have used the same argument. I could just say, my own words will be nonsense to the lost...so now you know that if any of this doesn't make any sense you are lost. :)
My version just says "after", and Strong's backs that up as an acceptable definition. Your interpretation is not mandated at all. "At some point" after the resurrection they believed fully. True.
The Spirit was given to them after the Resurrection but before the Pentecost (John 2:22), and at Pentecost some of the 11 still doubted (Mat 28:17)
Paul's eyes were blind, but his faith could NOT have been more based in reality. He experienced a real zapping, first hand, for real. Paul is the LAST person who would ever say that his FAITH was blind. He says the opposite, that his faith was DIRECTLY from Christ.
What is reality, FK? He tells us he was zapped and then he not only believed but knew it all. Gnosticism par excellence! No reason involved, no growing in faith; just signed, sealed and delivered all in one package...the secret handshake and secret knowledge all given in an instant. But if I wanted people to believe me, I would have said it was from Christ too. Where else comes faith anyway if not from God?
That is like saying: "He who has believed and has been baptized and has balanced his checkbook shall be saved".
No, that's your interpretation. The sentence clearly says that those who believe and are baptized will be saved. Those who do not believe will be lost. Why would non-believers be baptized? But a believe is not to just believe but be baptized as well in order to be saved.
Belief is salvation, baptism is an obedience to God.
That's why the Church cries out for all those outside. They have convinced themselves that baptism is "obedience" to God and has no other meaning. Baptism is for the remission of sins and remission of sins necessary for salvation. You can believe all you want, without remission of sins you cannot be with God because sin is the ubridgable divide that separates us from Him.
Acts 1:5 : For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit."
What does that mean? Baptiso in Greek means to dunk. How does one "dunk" with the Holy Spirit?
Therefore, it is inaccurate to say that we have assurance in our own minds, "no matter what we do". There is NO license to sin, and our leaders do NOT teach that there is.
Luther says it is.
We teach what Paul taught
Yes, I know. And we preach what Jesus taught. And Jesus taught that believers can fall away and be lost.
What does that mean? Baptiso in Greek means to dunk. How does one "dunk" with the Holy Spirit?
BAPTIZO is also translated "to be immersed". When we are immersed with God the Holy Spirit, some experience something somewhat akin to being fully immersed in water in their serenity of mind. This is not to suggest a physical sensation or some type of emotional experience is identifiable with saving grace and initial regeneration of the human heart, but the regeneration of the human spirit is sometimes associated with other phenomenon in some believers coincident to that salvation.
I think it means that Christ came to set His people apart from the wickedness of the world. A true believer will be despised by the world. And even those in his own family who are of the world will hate him. Another thing I think He is saying is that He doesn't want watered down Christianity. It is better to be hated than concede the true faith to make peace. There are plenty of people from all sides who have made concessions in this light.
Apparently, Matthew is using this rather strange approach to tell us in verse 38 that "whoever doesn't pick up the cross and follow" Christ "is not worthy of" Christ, suggesting we walk the way Christ walked and do what He did. The only problem with this supposed Jesus quote is that Christ would not have been crucified yet!, so what cross is He talking about?!?
Obviously, Matthew is writing after the fact and is making up a quote which Jesus would not have said (because it would have been before crucifixion) to make a point on something that doesn't make much sense (i.e. Christ did not come to bring peace!?!).
No, Matthew did not lie by making up a quote from Jesus. Jesus DID say it because He knew His listeners understood the principles of how a crucifixion worked. To carry one's own cross to his death was burdensome, and so the teaching was that we all must bear our own burdens in faith. Isn't that easier to believe than "Matthew lied"? :)
But one thing is clear: the rest of that section (verses 40 onward) is all about the rewards being works-based.
Heavenly rewards, yes. Salvation, no.
AMEN, Dr. E. It's part of our nature to want the power. It's hard to resist and we can't do it for ourselves. Thanks also for the great quotes. I'm not really familiar with Owen, but he sounds great. :)
Paul and Gnostics would disagree with you, FK.
My case is the typical case, but of course God can do it any way He wants. He had a special plan for Paul in this regard, which is His prerogative. I'm not even jealous. :) Plus, Paul TAUGHT to search the scriptures along the way so he KNEW he was a special case in the way he learned.
FK: I'm not sure how one could possibly hold to Reformed principles without scripture.
You mean without Paul?
Well, you're the one who says we believe in the OT too much! :) Besides, Sola Scriptura means we have to believe in and follow all of the scriptures. It's all we have for written revelation.
What about those who “believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away” (Luke 8:13)? According to you they never believed...but Christ is quoted as saying otherwise.
If you read Christ that way, you have Him saying that there can be true faith with no root. (What would be true about the faith if it had no root?) If so, then that would mean that faith is no longer a requirement for salvation because anyone could simply claim it, then do all the works, etc., for whatever reason, and then be saved. Does that sound like something Christ would teach? That would be a works-ONLY salvation.
It's not all we have ! There are only scraps as Kosta pointed out before.
You base what you say upon written witnesses of Catholic/Orthodox people who tell you their interpretations of what they thought were originals and who the Catholic's /Orthodox believe was guided by the Holy Spirit
Every one of them believed Jesus was truly present -Body ,Blood,Soul and Divinity in the Eucharist.
Either your belief is satanic or the one's who gave you Bible canon are satanic.
Take your choice.
Try me. :) I consider objective arguments. It's just when they morph into pink unicorns on Jupiter based on faith alone that I begin to disregard such "objective" arguments.
I HAVE tried. :) But the majority of my arguments are based directly on scripture, which I don't think you accept as objective. I presume you want me to use SOLELY non-Christian sources to prove the truth of my Christian arguments.
FK: God specifically ordered certain people to commit massacres at specific times.
Like that psycho who drowned her five children?
No, I don't recall that passage in the Bible. :) If you would put them on the same footing, then you can see where my opinion at the top comes from. If in your view you put Andrea Yates and Joshua in the same boat, then I don't think there is anything I can do to overcome that. It would seem you would declare Joshua as just some psycho who made up a mandate and went on a rampage, UNLESS, there was a credible, extra-Biblical non-believer there to back him up. At least, that's how it appears to me.
Maybe one day you will realize that the world starts with us and that what is true to us is not necessarily the objective truth.
And that is the HEART of Renaissance thinking. The world starts with man. And it was because of this thinking that they were never able to find unity between God and man. There is no way to do it if man is the starting point. Man wasn't around at the start so he cannot possibly know about it from himself. But, that never stopped those philosophers from trying to make it fit anyway. It never will.
Kosta: Doesn't the OT imply that massacres are "just" if they are Theopneumatos (God-breathed)?!?
FK: I don't think it implies it at all...
Oh yeah? I think it makes it very clear that they are "just" because they were God-inspired.
My whole statement was: "I don't think it implies it at all, it says it plainly. :)" So, I was agreeing or going even further than you did. :)
That's not what Jesus taught, however.
Yes, it certainly WAS. Jesus did not teach in the NT that we should go out and massacre at will, but He DID teach that we should always obey Him. The OT massacres (carried out righteously by humans) were always IN OBEDIENCE to God according to the scriptures. Therefore, they were implicitly following Christ's commands. In fact, many believe as I do that many/all of those OT commands were coming from Christ in the first place.
FK: God contacts me every day, but not like that.
Really? Why would that be necessary if there is an "indwelling Spirit" inside of you? Isn't that presence always "on?"
I didn't say anything about anything being necessary. I just think of the HUGE things that God asked of certain (many times unwilling) people throughout the OT and assume that His communication was sufficient enough such that it would "take". God hasn't asked of me anything like leading a nation of millions out of slavery. He hasn't asked me to kill my son or massacre an entire city. The communications I receive from the Holy Spirit just haven't been anything like that............ YET. :)
The original point was whether Jesus was lawfully, or could have been lawfully tried and convicted of a capital offense. You offer all of Luke 23 in support of your position, which I guess is that He was lawfully found guilty and executed. Your own argument says Pilate found Him guilty of nothing, YET, he decided to kill Him as a favor. Do you consider this lawful? No, it wasn't. It was the equivalent of jury nullification, in which a jury throws out the facts and rules however it wants. That's what Pilate did. It was not lawful. And again, in the trial before Caiaphas, Jesus WAS found guilty contrary to law.
All around this there was sin everywhere. It was all through the sham trials, those who led them, the Jews themselves, the Roman guards, the floggers, those who carried out the execution, etc. Now, we can just suppose that all of these thousands of details all just magically came together by chance and independent human free will. OR, we might consider that God's hand was all over this and everything that happened was through His direct control and involvement. There are just too many details to have the whole thing left to chance.
Even if one tries to argue that God simply foresaw all this, then first one would have to say that God is just a stenographer, writing things down, and is not involved with the day to day lives of humans. Then, that person would have to say that the perfect poetic climax of the most innocent person who has ever lived suffering the ultimate humiliation possible was just by luck. What if Jesus died in the flogging (which many did), or what if He bled to death from the thorns, etc.? There are a hundred scenarios that would be "less" in Christianity than what actually happened.
It does not say that any Jewish council found him guilty.
So when the leader of the council says in effect, "what more do we need to hear, he has hung himself already?", then your conclusion is that no disposition was reached by the council? Well, since the Bible doesn't print a copy of any resolution or anything, I suppose we are left to infer what happened next. I happen to think that my inference is pretty reasonable. :)
The bottom line is that there simply can be no argument whatsoever that Jesus was treated lawfully and got a just punishment for His alleged violation of law. That doesn't fit the facts in any of the Gospels.
I suppose that that is how one influenced by Calvin might read it. I see no contract; I see that we have responsibility to act in certain ways.
I think we have responsibility too. The difference is in whether one thinks that responsibility comes from having been GIVEN something, or does it come from the expectation of getting something. If I get married, then I have a responsibility to be a good husband in response to God's gift to me of my wife. If I want an 'A' on a test, then I have a responsibility to study very hard for it. If I fulfill my responsibility, then I deserve the 'A'. There's a difference. One is earned.
I don't see how your quotes from Matt. 25 could be used to support either of our positions on this issue. The passage you quote has believers not even knowing why they were doing good things. I would say that it was because that's what their new, already-saved natures naturally led them to do. They wanted to please God, even if they weren't conscious of it every single minute. But for you, how can you tie their "unknowingness" into making free will decisions to keep a responsibility?
In your continuation, those on the left were damned because they bore no fruit, i.e. they had no true faith. Good trees bear good fruit and bad trees do not. Is it a Catholic position that there are some with absolutely true faith, who simply do not pass some threshold of good works, that is possibly unknowable, and are thereby damned to hell for that?
But He will Judge us based upon our actions. This is not a piece of verse taken from here and grafted onto verse taken from there and sprinkled with a partial verse from somewhere else.
Are you told anywhere how this will work? I mean, will this judgment be based on quality or quantity, or what? A work is a measurable thing, so I would think it only fair for one to know what is expected of him to get into Heaven. How much do you have to do? Jesus told the rich young man what he had to do. Do you have to do that too? I'm just trying to get an idea of how this system actually works in practice.
Punishment is for misconduct. How can one be punished for something that one is not responsible for? Jesus says that one is given what one deserves.
Sure, we are BORN deserving death. Does that sound unfair? If you could have anything you wanted, would you wish for God to be fair with you? :) Not me because even if we ignored original sin, then on my first sin I would be destined to hell forever, no excuses, no exceptions. That would be fair. I am thankful to God that this is not the end of it. He did the extraordinarily UNFAIR thing and sacrificed His Son so that the elect shall be saved. So, with all things considered, I'd say it more than balances out in our favor.
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.