Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
Actually Protestants have as much agreement on fundamental doctrine Salvation, and sin as Catholics do.
Look around your church and see that 50% of Catholics do not go to mass on Sundays, thus rejecting the church rules. Look and see how many have 2 child families and see the rejection of the ban on birth control . I could go on but you know what a cafeteria Catholic is. Every one of them is actually their own denomination .So do not crow too loud :)
You are correct, what you posted was from #1238. I was incorrect to confuse it with the other dictionary definition posted by someone else (Zeeba?). But it was a dictionary and thus non-theological definition and it posted by Bohemund. Howeer, in #1251 Bohemund posted the proper theological definition of heresy and it was to that that I have been referring in all of my postings on heresy. It includes the elements of knowledge and pertinacity that are not found either in the Webster dictionary definition that someone else posted or the non-theological definition that Bohemund posted in 1238.
Hodge and Warfield would accept # 1251, not #1238.
Yes, it is my choice to sin, my decision to sin, my responsibility that I sin. I own every sin I commit and I deserve God's wrath for each one.
And every sin, like everything else in existence, was ordained from before the foundation of the world by God for His glory.
Does this puzzle you?
It puzzled Nicodemus, too. But Christ rebuked him, saying "Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit." (John 3:7-8)
I find it far more puzzling to believe God created all life and then sat back to merely watch it unfold. God's omniscience is not defined like that. God's sovereign knowledge of His creation includes every jot and tittle of existence. And if it exists in the mind of God as reality, then it is reality, will become reality, cannot become anything but this reality.
Further, to say God's foreknowledge is non-determinate is absurd. God knew Judas would betray Christ, yet He made Him anyway. Did Judas have a "choice" not to betray Christ?
Paul tells us because of Adam's fall, all men sin. In fact, they have no choice BUT to sin.
(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." -- Romans 5:12-19"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
The question you're really asking is why did God make us in the first place if we're all simply living out the lives He's written for us.
Paul answers that in Romans. Our responsibility is not to ask "why" other than to know everything occurs for His glory.
Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?" -- Romans 9:18-24"Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
All men sin and deserve God's wrath. The miracle is that God decided from before the foundation of the world to save some wretched sinners and bring them to His side by paying the terrible price of Christ's death and resurrection.
After answering questions like yours for several years now on this forum I realize that to think anything less than this is to challenge the very nature of God as He has revealed Himself in Scripture. The God of Moses and Jacob and Isaiah and Job and David and Solomon and John and Paul and Luke and Calvin and Luther and Wesley and Pope Benedict and you and me is not passive, unaware, uncertain, variable, imprecise, nonspecific, inattentive, indecisive or glib. He is the rock of our existence; the marrow in our bones; the blood in our veins.
Scripture tells us if we have Trinitarian faith in Jesus Christ we will see heaven. That faith is the evidence of our regeneration by God who has re-birthed our stone hearts and lifted us from death to eternal life. That faith is the evidence of God's gracious choosing, a choice He made from before the foundation of the world, for His glory.
The story of God's creation was finished the moment He decreed it from before the foundation of the world. Within its pages are to be found all sins, all victories, all pain, all joy, all foolish wisdom, all righteousness, and most especially, Jesus Christ's perfect redemption of His flock.
As written. No blue pages allowed. No co-authors permitted. Only God's will; His name above the title.
Rejoice, Cronos, Christ has risen. God abides. Life is unfolding exactly as He wills, for His glory and the joy of those who love Him.
Amen. One truth.
If the "church" sends the HS, that means that you or me, or Mrs Grundy who hates everybody is in control. That is perfectly ridiculous as well as totally unbiblical.
"Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same;"
I guess based on this definition we can't be considered heretics since there is no obstinate post-baptismal denial or doubt "of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith," since we were not baptized in the Roman Catholic Faith nor have we obstinately denied or doubted "some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith," since we were baptized according to our faith. The word "catholic" is in the lower case meaning universal which would include Protestant and Baptist, otherwise the word would be capitalized to show a particular faith.
Dr. E. you can stop worrying now you are no longer, by definition, considered a heretic. Have a nice weekend.
Oh. my mistake.
The man calling Lord Lord believed in his heart that he was working for the Lord, that is why he called it to the attention of Christ. But Christ called all those works inequity
Regarding Matthew 7, a little bit of context might help. "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Therefore by their fruits you will know them."
"Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'" (Matt 7:15-23)
Again, Jesus is not condemning good deeds per sec. In verse 15, He warns about those with false or evil hearts. Such a one cannot bear good fruits all the time. Other sections of the NT also bear this out - a person cannot do good if they are of evil mind. In verse 23, again, Jesus is speaking of "I never knew you" to those who practice lawlessness - not those who practice good deeds. He, as He does quite often, charges the hypocriticals to beware - God knows what is at their heart.
Nowhere does Matthew 7 talk about a man who does good deeds from his heart. That is you reading your theology into what is not there. I ask you to read it with open mind. Matt 7:21 is bracketed by those who practice evil in their hearts. Good deeds of love from the heart ARE pleasing to God...THAT IS the will of God!
but the bible tells me that unsaved man can never please God and that all his works are wood , hay and stubble. So an unsaved fireman that rushes into a building to save a child might be a hero to men, but if he is unsaved to God that very act is a sin.
But you are presuming to know WHO the unsaved are! How do we know today who will be destined for eternal life? God will save whom He will. Those who think they stand firmly, beware lest they fall! As to the "unsaved" fireman, I doubt that God would treat that as sin...Selfless sacrifice is not against the will of God - recall what Christ did on the cross? Selflsess sacrifice? It might not mean much regarding that fireman's eternal destiny (not knowing anything about him), but I wouldn't say that that act is sinful.
Salvation is a work of the Holy Spirit that brings a man to repentance and faith. When that happens men will testify to the change brought about by the work of the Holy Spirit and they will profess Christ as Lord and Savior. The profess is an outward sign of an inward change, much like baptism
True. But what is your definition of a "saved" person?
I think scripture tells us how to know if a man is saved and it definitely tells us that we have an assurance of our own salvation. Think of what Christ told us. He said that we can know a tree by its fruit, we are all called to be fruit inspectors. We are commanded not to be unequally yoked, that implies that we can know the saved abet not perfectly. I can not judge perfectly if another is saved, but I surely know who is not.
All that refers to the present. We can have an idea if we are saved today. But five years from now? Who knows what kind of fruit we will bring forth? Do you know of people who fell away? Before they fell away, do you think they were heading for eternal heaven? We just don't know what the future has in store for us. Also, we are wounded creatures. We cannot know perfectly where we stand before God, even today. I think it is better to approach the Lord in humble confidence that He will save us, rather than an expectation that He will save us.
I am not saying, God is .He says ALL our righteousness is as filthy rags. ALL of our self serving carnal works. That is me and it is you, it is every man .
What about when I abide in Christ? My works are no longer only my own, but the Spirit's, as well. Thus, my deeds of love prompted by the Spirit are meritorious for my salvation. They are no longer self serving works. "In the flesh" refers to those works WITHOUT Christ.
a man s current spiritual condition is clearly evident in his life.
For the most part. But we humans often have a way of fooling ourselves, don't you think? To know our spiritual state, we should ask the Spirit to reveal it to us. Just because we volunteer for this, or do that doesn't mean we are producing good fruits. We really have to look at our motives behind the acts.
Agape...is God loving through us, not us loving to earn brownie points.
Of course. Anyone who thinks that love is earning brownie points doesn't understand what love is. Love is Christ on the Cross. Look at a crucifix. Stare at it. Think of the unconditional love that that Man had to give His life for people who wouldn't even CARE. That is love. Love is selfless. It is totally about giving for the other. Anyone who starts to think about earning anything has left the realm of love. Do you think Christ was thinking about what He was 'earning' while dying? What about Mary when she saw her Son dying? Without love, you won't be saved. LOVE, not brownie points... Whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it in the name of the Lord.
I would say the love is a fruit of our salvation not its roots. It does not make our salvation "effective" but it does make it evident.
I would say you can't love without faith, and faith without love is not worthy of God. Faith is not the root, God is the root. When the Scriptures talk about love, do they mention the Spirit or faith as the catalyst? Whether it is faith or love, it is a gift from the Lord. First comes faith, then comes love. But love doesn't come from faith. If it did, then "all faith, enough to move mountains" would be sufficient to provide saving love - but Paul says it doesn't.
Regards
.lol, and did you refuse the gift of life, lol
Whew.
Precisely. In at least a half-dozen posts I have said this. I'm glad you finally got it.
Good, glad that's resolved. Now if you will look up the definition of "gift" you will find it is the intention of the giver that determines whether it is a gift or not, not the intention of the "givee".
With all due modesty, I think I'd say that I've given this one my best shot, even though I "failed". :) I do sincerely wish for you as much surety as your beliefs provide.
Paul says, "Wherefore he that thinketh himself to stand, let him take heed lest he fall" (1 Cor 10:12). We shouldn't be overconfident, like the Jews of 1 Cor 10:1-11, who DID die. Even Paul says he continues to run the race, lest he should be DISQUALIFIED. That doesn't mean "second place" or "consolation prize", but cast out of the company of those who persevered. We, too, must continue to run the race throughout our lives. That is what perseverence means. And since we do not know if God has already considered us one of the elect, we cannot become overconfident.
Except for the last sentence I agree with what you are saying in principle. I would "twist" it a little to say that we should not be overconfident because that is a false confidence. We would say that we take full confidence from God's promises in scripture, and that perseverance, which is absolutely necessary, will happen for the elect because God has ordained it so in His divine plan.
I doubt that a "saved" person moves to that point [falling away/rejecting God] immediately in their walk. From my experience, people will drift away, committing voluntary smaller sins, which eventually lead to committing more serious sins.
I agree, and if I said or implied otherwise then I apologize.
It happens. AND, if a person "was not saved in the first place", then how can you say you or anyone is "once saved/always saved"?
Well, I think I tried to argue that position in one previous post on this thread. Then, I learned from HarleyD the superior doctrine of "Perseverance of the Saints". That holds that man does need to persevere through life after salvation, and that is in accordance with scripture. By whatever means, God will ensure that His elect will persevere because He keeps His own and does not forsake His own.
How do you know that you have "x" amount of faith at that initial sinner's prayer moment?
A simple, honest, and great question! :) I really wish the quality of my answer would meet the quality of your question, but it ain't gonna happen. :)
I think that given my side's profession that salvation basically takes place in a single moment, it is perfectly reasonable to ask "what does it take to count?" That was exactly what was going through my mind just before I said the prayer alone in my room at age 17.
At the time, I knew that I had recently been taught enough basics that I could get through the sinner's prayer with honest understanding of what I was admitting to, what I was asking for, and why. (After that I had zippo knowledge of the Bible or any theology.)
So, what's an academically competitive but stupid 17-year-old kid supposed to do to make sure this dealy is in the books? I remember thinking at the time that it would all come down to sincerity. I remember reasoning that if I gave absolutely everything of my mind and of my heart, then how could I lose because of what God promised?
I stand behind that reasoning today because I know what I experienced. Without getting all mushy, I just opened up as much as I possibly could have in that body at that time. I admitted I was a sinner, that I needed God, that Jesus was God's son and God, and that He died for our sins on the cross. And most importantly, that He was raised on the third day.
All I can tell you is that I know for sure that when I said that to God I was changed. No burning bush action here at all, I'm just referring to how different I felt in my heart. That's all I have, so that's how I know.
and if a gift from the King of Kings was given, only an ungrateful fool would not accept it.
You're a bit premature with the laughing. If you recall, refusal is an act of free choice, right? The debate is over whether we have free will and can refuse, right?
Okay, and I also said repeatedly that no one can exercise free will until he has knowledge of right and wrong, right? So no one refuses or accepts anything until he is old enough to reason, right?
So at the moment of birth, the newborn neither refuses nor accepts life. He is incapable of free will. His parents, however, accepted life for him when they conceived him, nurtured him through gestation, birthed him and took care of him. They exercise their free will on his behalf.
We who have defended free will have always pointed out that infants do not exercise it and for that reason, their parents are so important. But we also pointed out that at the age of accountability (the word has direct bearing on freedom, moral choice-making) one becomes capable of exercising free will. At that point, automatically, one is capable of refusing the gift of life (it's called suicide, in case you were wondering--and in a less serious form, everyone who whines his way through life, being miserable, "wishing" he were dead is partially refusing life, even if he doesn't finally refuse it by suicide).
Until a child reaches this age of freedom/accountability, reason, life is not a gift in the full sense. It is an offered gift to him, an accepted gift by his parents. It becomes an accepted and thus full gift to him when he, having reached the age of reason, continues to live it acceptingly rather than to reject it partially (wishing he were dead) or fully (suicide).
Your fallacy, gotcha guy, was that you failed to take account of timing.
Truly, all life is a gift from God. But not all recipients of life know that it is and therefore not all have completed the process of life-gifting. I did accept the gift of life. I could have refused it, despite your sarcastic implication that I had no choice. I did have a choice beginning at the point at which I understood it to be a gift (knowledge) and chose to accept it rather than kill myself (free choice).
With every breath I take I reaffirm my reception and acceptance of the gift of life, and so do you.
You just didn't know it because you hadn't thought it through.
If you weren't quite so eager to score a gotcha, this might have occurred to you by yourself. I gave you all the building blocks when I described how gifts are offered and received or rejected. I said a refused gift is not a gift in the full sense and that a gift fully becomes a gift when accepted. Built into that definition was the possibility that seven or eight years could pass between offering and accepting of a gift. You didn't stop to think of that, now, did you?
A man offers an engagement ring to a woman. She takes some time to think it over. He has not yet gifted her with the ring until she accepts. I never said that accepting a gift has to occur within a certain time limit. And having accepted the gift of life from the time I was seven or eight, guess what, I'm still free to refuse it tomorrow.
Your God who won't let us refuse anything just doesn't square with basic human experience.
LOL. Exactly. Or the gift of good health or a loving spouse or strong children or the 20th century United States as a birthplace, or the ears with which the Gospel is heard?
The fact that God's determing redemption cannot be refused if God chooses to give it is what makes salvation stand apart from anything on this earth.
The Holy Spirit is miraculously effective and does not, cannot fail.
All whom Christ came to gather will see Paradise.
lol, no I'm still laughing. You seem to think that man has something to do with his being both physically and more importantly, spiritually alive. You, your parents, your teachers, the cosmos and Oprah, have absolutely no say whatsoever in it.
It is true that without the giver intending a gift it would not be a gift. The intention of the giver is necessary but not sufficient cause of it being a gift. Likewise, another necessary (not optional) but not sufficient cause of something being a gift is it's acceptance by the giftee. Until it is accepted the gift is not a gift in the full sense.
A gift refused is a gift-manque, an attempted gift, a partially gifted gift, an ungifted gift, a rejected gift, hence ultimately a non-gift.
A gift forced on a person against his will lacks the necessary intent that you yourself admit is required. A God who plans on forcing something on us is not intending a gift but intending to tyrannize us. A rapist is not offering his body as a gift to his victim but forcing it on her. If she were willing to receive his body, it would not be rape. If he knows her to be unwilling and forces himself on her, he does not intend to gift her with his body.
The problem with your use of dictionary definitions in this and other matters is that dictionaries do not define words in all their philosophical and theological implications. But my exposition of the meaning of gift is consonant even with your dictionary definition. It just expands it. I agree that intention is necessary but I simply define gift-intention as precluding forcing an unwanted thing on someone against her will. The intention of someone who forces something on someone is not the gift-intention that the dictionary definition takes for granted.
Nice try. Do you see the problem with gotcha games? Just just glom onto a definition and don't stop to think through what it presupposes, what its implications are.
Amen. I don't recall many Scripture verses talking about our "acceptance" of the gift.
Instead, time and again we're told we "receive" the gift of God's grace through faith in Jesus Christ.
I just don't understand their reluctance to see that this reality makes the gift God gave them so much more precious and profound because it is totally undeserved, yet totally free.
Or else what is mercy?
lol. My cows, were they in fact spiritual creatures, would love to hear the Word of God preached. And I would love it if they could become such. However, though it is a biblical truism, that faith comes by hearing, for some reason, I am sure, that no matter how long, silently or vocally, one preaches to them, they are still just going to be alfafa loving cows.
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.