Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
Absolutely not. He hates a whole bunch of them.
Yes, only the elect. I pray that you're in! :)
As my Pastor has taught a thousand times, I do not have a religion, I have a relationship.
I don't view it so much as God loving some and hating others, although that is consistent with my other statements. I look at it as God hating sin. As all are sinful and unfit for heaven on their own merits, God through His mercy has chosen to save some, and, yes, others He passes by.
I never think of God in terms of what He can or can't do. He CAN do anything. I think of Him in terms of what He will or won't do, based on His nature and His promises.
You are beating around the bush. Let's face it: biblical references that show that God wants to save all simply don't fit your idea of God, so you ignore them.
I don't think it's been my practice to ignore any scripture put before me. A person may not like my comments, or sometimes I will admit that I don't know, but I don't think I ignore anything. I say that God gets only and exactly everything He wants. God certainly wants to save all of His elect. He authored this whole "existence" thing, and so He makes all the rules.
The Protestant belief is an error because it assumes that our decisions whether to cooperate with God's grace or not somehow threaten the accomplishment of God's plan, as well as the erroneous belief that God is unable to change His own Plan as He sees fit if he gives us free will.
By no means on either account. If God's plan was dependent on our decisions, as you seem to argue, then God's originally intended plan would be threatened because He would either have to work around us or change His plan Himself. I say that neither is the case.
Again, I don't come and say God CAN'T change His plan, I say He WON'T change His plan because He is God and would never need to.
Your summary of my post reminds me of how you present Christ's teaching: out-of-contex and distorted. You took only those sentences that you wished to use in order to caricature my post, or to give them your own meaning.
As just one example (and others can help me), but did not Moses resist leading the Jews? Didn't God say, in effect, "Don't worry, I've got you covered"? God did override the will of Moses to get what He wanted. It was part of His plan, therefore it happened. I believe it is the same with salvation.
But He did good works. Jesus said he NEVER KNEW him. NOT THAT HE KNEW HIM AND THEN HE SINNED. But that he had never known him INSPITE of all those good works done in the name of the Lord. Can an unsaved man do any pleasing act to God?
There is a direct connection between the 2 verses
Mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, lord, have we not in thy name prophesied? and in thy name cast out demons? and in thy name done many mighty things?
Mat 7:23 and then I will acknowledge to them, that -- I never knew you, depart from me ye who are working lawlessness.
If he was performing God pleasing works, and by your reckoning that works are a part of salvation, surely God would have known him. But He NEVER KNEW HIM
I believe the sentence points to the sin being what the man believed were "good works" worthy off salvation. But even if you want to deny that the things Christ was calling "lawlessness" were the things like casting out demons in His name, it does not change the fact that the mans works did not help him even get the Lords attention, let alone help in salvation
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.
I am presuming nothing, only stating that God expects us to be fruit inspectors. Implicate in the command to preach the gospel is that it goes to unsaved men, the order not to be unequally yoked implies some judgment on our friends, future spouses and business partners. Why do you think He would tell us those things if He did not intend for us to make some judgments on the spiritual condition of others? Our decision is not "binding on God" but we are look at others with an eye to their eternal state
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.
You may doubt it if you like, but the bible is clear that the unsaved can do nothing pleasing to God. He said "WHAT IS NOT OF FAITH IS SIN" God called it sin not me.
Rom 14:23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because [he eateth] not of faith: for whatsoever [is] not of faith is sin.
Hbr 11:6 But without faith [it is] impossible to please [him]: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and [that] he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
So as men we may see the act of the fireman as selfless and good, if it was preformed without faith to God it is a sin (a failure to seek and rely on him )
True. But what is your definition of a "saved" person?
The one found in the Bible
Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Rom 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
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 expect God to be faithful to His word. We are saved by grace and mercy not our worth. Just as we can not save ourselves neither can we "keep" ourselves. To believe that we can dismisses the true Savior and turns to self dependance and self worth. I did not deserve to be saved on the day that God saved me, I do not deserve to be saved today nor will I deserve it tomorrow. I am saved soley by Gods mercy and grace, I am kept solely by Gods mercy and grace. I could not earn it nor can I keep it. HE is the author and finisher of my faith
( The doctrine of the preservation of the Saints (that is that the saved can not fall away is clearly taught in these passages, John 10:28,29; Romans 11:29; Phil 1:6; 1 Peter 1:5. It, moreover, follows from a consideration of (1) the immutability of the divine decrees (Jeremiah 31:3; Matthew 24:22-24; Acts 13:48; Romans 8:30); (2) the provisions of the covenant of grace (Jeremiah 32:40; John 10:29; 17:2-6); (3) the atonement and intercession of Christ (Isaiah 53:6,11; Matthew 20:28; 1 Peter 2:24; John 11:42; 17:11,15,20; Romans 8:34); and (4) the indwelling of the Holy Ghost (John 14:16; 2co 1:21,22; 5:5; Ephesians 1:14; 1 John 3:9).
1 Samuel 2:9; Nehemiah 9:16-19; Psalm 31:23, 32:7,23,28-33, 38, 84:5-7, 89:30-33, 94:14, 97:10, 121:7, 125:1; Proverbs 2:8; Isaiah 40:30, 54:4-10; Jeremiah 32:38-42; Matthew 18:6, 12-14, 24:22-24; Luke 1:74, 22:32; John 3:36, 4:13, 5:24, 6:37-40, 51, 8:31, 10:4, 8, 27-29, 17:11, 15; Romans 6:1-4, 7:24-8:4, 28-39, 11:29, 14:14; 1 Corinthians 1:4-9, 3:15, 10:13; 2 Corinthians 1:22, 5:5; Ephesians 1:11-14, 4:30; Philippians 1:6; Colossians 3:1-4; 1 Thessalonians 5:23; 2 Thessalonians 3:3-5; 2 Timothy 1:12, 4:18; Hebrews 3:14, 7:25, 10:14, 36-39, 13:5; 1 Peter 1:3-5; 2 Peter 3:8; 1 John 2:19, 3:9, 5:4, 13, 18; Jude 1, 24.)
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/perseverance.html
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.
Agreed, those works were ordained for you before the foundation of the world( Eph 2) . They are Gods works in you and so they are pleasing to him . The works are indeed worthy before God and will be a part of one of the crown he gives you that you will toss at His feet acknowledging that HE not you deserve the glory for them
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.
Gal 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
That is the indwelling Holy Spirit . He is loving through us. If you do not have faith in Christ as your Saviour then you do not have the indwelling Holy Spirit, so there is no divine love there,only carnal love .
Rom 5:5 And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.
1Jo 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God,,/B> and knoweth God.
1Pe 1:22 Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, [see that ye] love one another with a pure heart fervently:
2Ti 1:7 For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.
Oh pleazzzze!!! Let's summarize:
lol
Do you? Why? You believe that it's already been decided from all eternity and that nothing you do can change that. And I believe with all my heart that whatever happens to me will be merciful and just, for God is both. So I say "Thy will be done" in peace and in awe.
As my Pastor has taught a thousand times, I do not have a religion, I have a relationship.
Did it ever occur to you that the word relationship does not exist in the Bible (save for the gender-neutral or rainbow ones perhaps)? Did it ever occur to you that the word pastor means a sheppard? If so, then you are his sheep!
Are you following him or are you following your own intellect as all Protestants claim? If you follow your own interpretations, then he is not you pastor. Food for thought, but don't let me lead you there!
I think of [God] based on His nature...
Did it ever occur to you that the word nature is what we call essence? Now you will tell me that you know God's nature?
If God's plan was dependent on our decisions, as you seem to argue....
Where did I say that we can change His plan?
I said that God changes His plan if He sees fit. He is not limited as to the options available to Him. And all His solutions lead to the same end, regardless of us. He changes what happens to us, upon repentance (true repentance I mean, metanoia).
Again, I don't come and say God CAN'T change His plan, I say He WON'T change His plan because He is God and would never need to
And where do you find that in Scriptures that you may say what God will or will not do? Look up the word repent and tell me that He does not intercede on behalf of those who repent, by changing their destinies.
Orthodox/Catholic:
Reformed:1)
Not sure if they're saved or notDo not presume that they will go to Heaven2)
Must do good works to be savedFaith without works is dead.3)
Asks the saints to intercede for themMay ask saints to pray for them, but pray to God.4)
Have to constantly be filled with "God's grace" through the EucharistHonored to obey Jesus' instructions at the Last Supper5)
No plan of God for one's lifeDo not pretend to know God's mind
1)
God loves me and has guarentee my salvationGod loves the elect and has guaranteed their salvation, but hates the rest of humanity2)
I'm saved by what our Lord Jesus has doneOnly the elect are saved by Jesus' works3) I can boldly go directly to the throne of God the Father because of His Son
4)
God has rebirth me and sealed me with His Holy SpiritGod has rebirthed the elect and sealed only them with the Holy Spirit5)
God has a perfect plan for my life to give me a future and a hopeGod has a perfect plan for the elect, but created the rest of humanity to be damned
Well, its not that God wants it back, but expects us to utilize what He gives us. He has given us "x" amount of intellect for a reason. Do we waste it in idle useless trivial pursuits? Or do we use it to advance the Kingdom?
As to faith not being explicitly mentioned, I was hoping you'd would say that faith is presumed! I agree! And when Christ speaks of "faith", He is presuming that we will walk in that faith (although we can choose not to). Thus, I find that when Christ mentions "good deeds", such as the parable of the Goats and Sheep, or when Christ mentions "unless one believes on me, he shall not have life", I think He is discussing one but NOT excluding the other. I can't find anywhere in the Gospels where Christ says we are saved with one (deeds or faith) without the other. Because it is mentioned so many times, one would suspect that it is PRESUMED when not explicitly mentioned.
Faith and works are two sides of the same coin. Without it, we can't get on the salvation bus (sorry, it's Friday...)
I admit that I'm not an expert on this yet, but I think you may be putting too much emphasis on the "presumption" angle. Man never determines salvation. The presumption of salvation is only to make the doctrine operative. "Assuming you are truly saved, God will keep you infallibly". There is no presumption of salvation just because someone calls himself a Calvinist. Salvation is just necessary beforehand for the doctrine to have any meaning.
Perhaps you are right, I am putting too much emphasis on "presumption". But it does sound like begging the question...assuming you are saved, God will keep you. 'yes, but how do you know that you are truly saved?' Because I believe I am!
See where this is going? Here is something for you... When if someone is misinterpreting Scripture when it comes to salvation? I haven't mentioned this before, but it is a good a time as any. WHEN IF Jean Calvin is wrong? This throws a monkey wrench into the whole process, doesn't it? We are placing our trust in a particular interpretion of the Bible. Who can say who is right when two different pastors on opposite corners of a street say two things diametrically opposed?
I don't have a problem that God CAN speak through the Church, but I don't seem to understand the exclusivity. As to who is preaching correctly, I would say that you can know for sure based on the preaching's faithfulness to a very prominent center of authority God did leave us on earth. The Bible.
The exclusivity is the source of our infallible teaching, God. Through Christ, He left us a community led by Apostles who would teach all that Christ taught them. It is THEY whom Christ said He would protect from doctrinal error. Thus, when people within the Church have a problem, who does Christ say we should go to in Matthew 18? The Church, a visible Community that one could clearly point to. They are the ones we should exclusively go to when we, as Christians, cannot figure out what the meaning of salvation really is. Calvin was not guaranteed this protection. Only the Apostles and their successors (if you believe that Christ established an eternal Community).
The center of authority is the Bible? I have a few problems with that idea. First, how can a book be the center of authority? Every book is subject to interpretation. Look at us now! And secondly, God didn't establish an authoritative book, but an authoritative group of men who would lead His community of believers. THEY would preach and teach. They didn't pass out Bibles and say "here, read this - this will be your source of authority". At first, they taught only by word of mouth. Later, they wrote down letters. In either manner, they continued to teach the Word of God, the Gospel. It was the Apostles, not the Scripture, whom Christ built His Church upon. It is the Church, not the Scriptures, that are the pillar and foundation of the Truth. The Church is relevant because God has given it to us to know His will infallibly on important matters, such as salvation and grace.
We revere the Scriptures, but without proper interpretation, one can very easily follow a false teaching.
Brother in Christ
Those who refuse to do things the way God has instituted them are refusing Him. There were some charecters in Numbers 16 who also thought they could do it better than Moses. If God says "This is the way I want it done", and you say, "well, I'd rather do it this way", what does that say about refusing the Lord?
The Vatican is built on a hill that was previously devoted to a pagan goddess. Popes are not followers of Peter ( and there is no record of him ever being in Rome, only in Jerusalem)but they are the political descendents of the vicars that ruled Rome, Pontiff Maximae.
LOL!!! What's your source, Jack Chick? I suppose the more you make Rome to be the worse of all evils, the easier it is for you to say, "God, ya see, I can't accept the way you did it through the Catholic Church. How about I build my own church?"
Regards
No, Malachi Martin, ever hear of him?
. Please give me biblical verses telling me exactly how the Lord instituted the Catholic Church. My bible seems to be missing that section
Popes are not followers of Peter ( and there is no record of him ever being in Rome, only in Jerusalem)
This is really amateur anti-Catholicism. You can do better.
Tertullian, in The Demurrer Against the Heretics (A.D. 200), noted of Rome, “How happy is that church . . . where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned in a death like John’s [referring to John the Baptist, both he and Paul being beheaded].” Fundamentalists admit Paul died in Rome, so the implication from Tertullian is that Peter also must have been there. It was commonly accepted, from the very first, that both Peter and Paul were martyred at Rome, probably in the Neronian persecution in the 60s.You can see more here.In the same book, Tertullian wrote that “this is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrnaeans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John; like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter.” This Clement, known as Clement of Rome, later would be the fourth pope. (Note that Tertullian didn’t say Peter consecrated Clement as pope, which would have been impossible since a pope doesn’t consecrate his own successor; he merely ordained Clement as priest.) Clement wrote his Letter to the Corinthians perhaps before the year 70, just a few years after Peter and Paul were killed; in it he made reference to Peter ending his life where Paul ended his.
In his Letter to the Romans (A.D. 110), Ignatius of Antioch remarked that he could not command the Roman Christians the way Peter and Paul once did, such a comment making sense only if Peter had been a leader, if not the leader, of the church in Rome.
Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (A.D. 190), said that Matthew wrote his Gospel “while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church.” A few lines later he notes that Linus was named as Peter’s successor, that is, the second pope, and that next in line were Anacletus (also known as Cletus), and then Clement of Rome.
At Pentecost Jesus, as promised, breathed the Holy Ghost into his disciples and charged them to go, teach the Gospel and baptize others:
1 And when the days of the Pentecost were accomplished, they were all together in one place: 2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a mighty wind coming, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 And there appeared to them parted tongues as it were of fire, and it sat upon every one of them: 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they began to speak with divers tongues, according as the Holy Ghost gave them to speak.12 And they were all astonished, and wondered, saying one to another: What meaneth this? [...] 14 But Peter standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and spoke to them [...]
41 They therefore that received his word, were baptized; and there were added in that day about three thousand souls. 42 And they were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles, and in the communication of the breaking of bread, and in prayers.
(Acts 2)
What we have here is the birth of the Church, which becomes a tower of Babel in reverse. The body of the disciples receive the Holy Ghost from Jesus and go forth to baptize others. They become pastors of the sheep.
This commission of the Church, sometime solely in the persons of the eleven Apostles and sometime including other disciples, is also described in all the gospels. It consists of the charge to baptize, take confessions and teach others.
16 And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. 17 And seeing them they adored: but some doubted. 18 And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. 19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.Washing of regeneration has nothing to do with baptism(Matthew 28)
14 At length he appeared to the eleven as they were at table: and he upbraided them with their incredulity and hardness of heart, because they did not believe them who had seen him after he was risen again. 15 And he said to them: Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.
(Mark 16)
45 Then he opened their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures. 46 And he said to them: Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise again from the dead, the third day: 47 And that penance and remission of sins should be preached in his name, unto all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
(Luke 24)
21 He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. 22 When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. 23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.
(John 20)
Wrong. Baptism is regeneration, and, of course, uses water:
3 Jesus answered, and said to him: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. 4 Nicodemus saith to him: How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter a second time into his mother's womb, and be born again? 5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.(John 3)
lol. And Peter ended his book, Greetings from Babylon. lol
lol. And Peter ended his book, Greetings from Babylon. lol
Is "lol" short for "I made an silly, easily-disproved statement?"
I don't understand why, or even what control are you talking about. If what you are trying to say is that the priest performing a sacrament might not mean it, then the Church teaches that the sacrament remains valid despite the disposition of the priest. It is always the same sacrament regardless of the priest, presuming it is validly confected.
No, but gotta tellya, either Peter had a great sense of awareness, or humor, because he knew Babylon when he saw it, lol
No, but gotta tellya, either Peter had a great sense of awareness, or humor, because he knew Babylon when he saw it, lol
Yes, Peter recognized that pagan Rome needed to hear the message of Christ crucified, and was himself martyred there for his efforts.
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.