Where does it say in the Bible that man cannot break God's seal? The fact that men continue to sin even after Baptism shows that God allows such breaks. This all goes back to the Reformed denial of God's gift of free will and reason and a Mohamedan-like distortion of Christianity, with God being the tyrant and a micro manager.
This is a good description of someone who lives under the Law and not under grace
The Beatitudes are in the NT, so your statement is nonsense. It is just that the Beatitudes clash with Paul's innovations (which were necessary to spread Judaism to Gentiles), so you reject them or ignore them. This is another fine example where the Reformed choose Paul over Jesus' own words.
Paul spoke often of this
I am sure he did. If you think about it, why did God give the Law if it was supposed to be discarded? But was there any other way to bring the Gentiles to accept this new form of Judaism? He had to cater to the "customers," if you think about it, and was many things to many different groups.
I have repeatedly asked the Reformed to stop quoting Paul to make their point, and they can't because without Paul Protestantism would be dead. It is a Paulian cult and I know this irritates a lot of people, but in order to "prove" their point they either depend on the OT or Paul, with the Gospels' eyewitness message relegated to a distant third place.
Kosta: Yeah, we should be like Christ in our hearts, pure, and we shall see God. Is your heart pure?
FK: Sure, Matt. 5:8 says that those who will see God (the elect) are blessed and given a pure heart.
I am sorry, FK, you can't (or won't) even quote from the Bible the way it reads in order to make your point, but rearrange and add words to suit your agenda. Mat 5:8 says "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God." It doesn't say anything about them being "given" a pure heart. And for you to claim that your heart is pure is like saying you don't sin. How prideful is that?!
Everyone knows that man is autonomous and self-determined
More distortions. God gave man reason and freedom. If we are free and rational, it is because God willed it so, not because man somehow earned it or because was somehow obliged to yield to man. God wants man to come to Him freely because love doesn't force, and true love can only be free.
I answered the question after you posted here. What makes you think that sinning after salvation has anything to do with breaking God's seal? It doesn't. Even though there is sin from time to time, the SEAL of the Holy Spirit, and thereby salvation is not broken. God does not seal us against ever sinning again. The Bible does not claim that. The seal is of salvation.
FK: "This is a good description of someone who lives under the Law and not under grace."
The Beatitudes are in the NT, so your statement is nonsense. It is just that the Beatitudes clash with Paul's innovations (which were necessary to spread Judaism to Gentiles), so you reject them or ignore them.
You are the one advocating that one is saved by living up to the Beatitudes. That is a works-dominant salvation model. That is by definition living under the Law. If we put your posts together we have on the one hand that the Beatitudes are the road map to salvation, and ALSO that there is no faith mentioned in them. I can only conclude that for you faith is unnecessary to salvation in a GENERAL sense, that is, not bringing in special situations like abortion victims. Therefore, I currently understand you to think that as long as anyone lives a good enough life (and is baptized) he will be saved. Having true faith would be like a bonus or something.
The Beatitudes are a wonderful part of scripture and describe generally what a Christian looks like after he has been saved.
This is another fine example where the Reformed choose Paul over Jesus' own words.
The Reformed understand that Jesus and Paul do not contradict each other. Jesus taught Paul LITERALLY everything he wrote. The Bible is one unified revelation by God. You cannot possibly think anything like that.
If you think about it, why did God give the Law if it was supposed to be discarded?
Jesus made clear that the Law was NOT to be discarded. As for its purpose, the Bible tells us:
Rom 3:19-20 : 19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.
Rom 7:7 : What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet."
Gal 3:24 : So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith.
So, among other things, the law was meant to teach us that we CANNOT get to God by following it of our own merits. It was meant to lead us to Christ in faith.
But was there any other way to bring the Gentiles to accept this new form of Judaism? He had to cater to the "customers," if you think about it, and was many things to many different groups.
God had to cater to His customers. Astounding. :) But, this is right in line with Apostolic thinking as I understand it. Autonomous man is the customer and the customer is always right, so God had to bob and weave to come up with a marketing strategy to get anyone to follow Him. I guess for the time being that would put God ahead in the ratings, but Allah has been making some inroads over the last few years. God shouldn't be complacent in the free market. :)
I have repeatedly asked the Reformed to stop quoting Paul to make their point, and they can't because without Paul Protestantism would be dead.
I know you have, but on some issues, Paul is the most authoritative and clear source I have. I would also like to note for the lurkers that here we have one Christian asking another Christian not to quote the Bible to him. God's word is Holy to me, and I cannot refuse to speak it.
It [Protestantism, presumably Reformed] is a Paulian cult and I know this irritates a lot of people, but in order to "prove" their point they either depend on the OT or Paul, with the Gospels' eyewitness message relegated to a distant third place.
Again, you have the Bible in quite a turmoil, disagreeing with itself and in conflict all over the place. You argue that sides must be chosen among the competing books. So, you appear to have chosen the Gospels (although you also say that even these conflict with each other) as the one thing we can hold anchor to.
You call those who follow what Paul taught a cult. Again to lurkers, we have one Christian saying to another Christian that he is a cultist because he believes what Paul taught in the Bible is true.
We don't see it that way at all. We see the Bible as one harmonious revelation from God to His children. And, BTW, Paul plus the OT makes up well more than 90% of the Bible and you are criticizing us for quoting it as authoritative? That is very telling. I suppose we only have the men of your church to blame. After all, your side claims that you gave us the Bible we quote from.
And for you to claim that your heart is pure is like saying you don't sin. How prideful is that?!
Not at all, I answered as God sees me after Christ justified me.
FK: "Everyone knows that man is autonomous and self-determined."
More distortions.
You just told me in another post that men come to God "on their own". If that isn't autonomous I don't know what is. I never said anything about how man got to be autonomous under what I think your beliefs are. I would assume you would say that God made man autonomous and not dependent on Him, and that man has the inner goodness of his independent being to come to God on his own. God just watches His glorious creation do whatever it wants and however it turns out is just fine with Him. I would assume that you think that is required in order for man to be free.
We believe God LOVES much more than that. We believe God's love trumps man's freedom.