Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
You are being anachronistic. God did not give the message to all men through some sort of mind-meld, nor did He deliver the Scriptures by air-freight to all men to figure out that they were each to be ministers of reconciliation. The Gospel was committed to a few men to spread the Word of God. That was God's design. Today, things are different. Of course, we have the Scripture readily available, and we ARE to present the Word to other people. However, this Word is to presented in REFERENCE to those who it was given to present - the successors of the Apostles. Remember Eph 4:11-13, God gave men different "jobs" in the ministry? You are being anachronistic and trying to place your views of the 21st century US democratic viewpoint upon the Scriptures and God's plan of salvation.
Regards
Hardly. YOU interpret "being saved" as permanent - yet YOU cannot define WHEN that happens!!!! The fact of the matter is that you and Harley on placing your definition of "being saved" into Jesus' mouth - when there is NOTHING in the Scripture passages to suggest that salvation was permanent for this woman. NOTHING. Common experience has taught ALL of us that people get "sick" again, whether we refer to the physical world or the spiritual world.
All we know is that she was healed of her slavery to sin. But over and over, Jesus warns us to PERSEVERE. IF salvation was PERMANENT, what exactly is the POINT of perseverance???
Regards
Nowhere does that suggest that Jesus meant FUTURE sins, as well. Otherwise, WHY did Christ give the Apostles the ministry of forgiveness of sins AFTER THE RESURRECTION??? There is nothing in the Scripture that suggests that a person could not fall away. Remember, all of the letters of the Scripture were addressed to OTHER CHRISTIANS. And over and over, the writers warn them to persevere, to beware not to fall away, to not be tepid in their faith.
Please note while our Lord Jesus opened this man's eyes, he didn't understand who the Messiah was until Christ revealed Himself to him. Where is the "universal call" that we hear everyone telling us about? The Lord doesn't do the same for the Pharisee and specifically states their "sin remains".
Jesus over and over called to the Pharisees! Jesus noted it was THEIR BLINDNESS, their stubborn hearst, not Christ's lack of calling that kept them in the dark. They REFUSED to believe that Jesus was offering something that was outside of their little box they built for God.
Regards
FK: In a word, YES. :)
Where exactly does the Scripture even IMPLY that? This sounds like another man-made tradition that keeps men away from God...
It's not so much that scripture says this, but it doesn't support your position either. We both know the Bible has plenty of verses that warn us to beware of those who come and teach error. I am not asserting that those verses are directed at Catholics! :) I am saying how can we know who they are talking about? I would attempt to know by measuring any teaching against the Bible.
In the end, it comes down to authority, I suppose. Who do we believe has given us "God's Word"?
I agree with you.
Do you agree that God could have chosen "perfect" men, men of supreme skill and ability, sinless in every way, to be His corridor of passing His Word to others?
If I am following you, then I would agree with you in answering 'no'.
There is plenty of Scriptural evidence to suggest that "the Church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth". Either we believe that the Holy Spirit is guiding a group of men to interpret God's Word when called upon to do so (during heresy), or we have NO CLUE on what God has taught as His Word.
So, God is not the pillar and foundation of the Truth? There are verses that say this? I don't agree with your either-or scenario. You are saying it is either your system, with your people, or there is chaos. That's not true, God gives us His word. Sure, there are some who misinterpret it, and they will have to answer for it someday. That is fine with me. I don't believe that popularity equals truth.
When if every Christian was Protestant? And when if someone asked "Is baptism necessary for salvation?" THIS IS A CRITICAL QUESTION! Protestantism CANNOT answer this simple question.
You are right in that some would be wrong. :) But, as I said before, I don't see baptism as necessarily critical. Faith is what is critical. I can't say I know for sure on this, but it makes sense to me that the vast majority of those who are saved and have achieved any reasonable level of sanctification, choose to be baptized, at least if they never have been, because they know Jesus said we should be. I can't think of any people I know, whom I'm guessing are saved, who have not been baptized either as an infant or a believer, or as in my case, both :).
While I think that might also be true as I am learning the different positions, I think part of this is that I originally assumed you were Catholic, when I should not have. From later postings, I figured out you were Orthodox. Sorry for the mistake.
This hardly follows. For what you say to be true, God would have to be unable to know what choices individual human beings would make. God is outside time itself, which is itself a created thing. Past, present, and future as we experience them do not apply to God.
I have no problem with God being outside of time and already knowing everything that is going to happen as we experience it. God did know. But, even when you suppose the POSSIBILITY that the Romans and Jews did not "kill" Jesus you would require that the Bible would have to be completely written around the other scenario. God would have had to invent a completely new way to salvation.
IOW, you are saying that God's plan is built around the decisions of men. I think that takes away from God's sovereignty. You also take away from Jesus that He gave up His life voluntarily to save us. You are supposing that Jesus could have lived until old age, but that men overpowered Him using their free will and killed Him. By this, Jesus is a very weak God indeed.
All that is necessary is for the source of prophecy to know what did, does, and will happen. This argument from prophecy in support of predestinationist theories implies that the only alternative is for God to be inside time, experiencing it in the same as as his creatures do, waiting with bated breath to find out what is going to happen in human history. He is, of course, not.
Again, you are saying that God builds around man. God doesn't have to be inside time for predestination to work. God just has to be in full control, which you appear to deny.
FK: ... either Jesus was super duper lucky for things to turn out the way they did in order to accomplish what the Father sent Him to do ...
Why would Jesus be super duper lucky to know what would happen? To say this is to imply that I am saying that Christ was ignorant of the future. Please don't insult non-Calvinists that way.
I didn't mean to be insulting, I was trying to show that God does not work around man. And, I gave you an "OR" statement along with the above. It was: "maybe it's possible that God actually had a hand in arranging that all the necessary things took place." If you think I accused you of the first, it then appears that you reject the second. God's sovereignty is lowered again.
Did Christ pretend to hunger, pretend to thirst, pretend to suffer pain, pretend to be tired, pretend to sweat?
No, because it was God's intention that Jesus go through these things as a man on earth. It was obviously not God's intention that Jesus grow old and die of natural causes. I know that because it didn't happen and God always gets what He wants. He has that kind of authority.
The Calvinist/predestinationist theory does indeed hold together, as do many theoretical constructs, but only if one is willing to believe that God created a humankind full of automatons, rather than creatures who are created in the image of God -- free to choose God or not.
I can understand your aversion to God being in control of everything. I used to believe just as you about this. However, if we truly believe in a sovereign God, then I don't see any other answer. How powerful is our God? Of course, we don't experience being automatons, we don't know the future. But, God is still in full control, even of the sin He knows about but does not create. About a week ago, Dr. Eckleburg posted an excellent link to an article that is dead on point with our discussion. At least you can know where we are coming from much better than I can say it. :)
"If Mary is the woman in 15, then who is the woman in 16? Are you saying that God switches from Mary to Eve in one verse?"
One of the most important things to understand about patristic teaching in the Orthodox Church is the concept of recapitulation.
A given Scripture doesn't necessarily refer to only one event. One sees this all through the OT prophets, where their words clearly refer to events of their own day or immediate future -- and yet the Church saw that these same statements had other meanings, referring to events far in the future.
As an example, look at the prophet Malachi. He says that Elijah will come, and in the Gospels, Christ makes it clear that this referred to St. John the Baptist. Yet, there is yet something more. In the Septuagint, the text is very specific. It says that "Elijah the Tishbite" will come as a forerunner to the arrival of Christ.
The Orthodox Church sees this as being *also* a very literal reference to the original Elijah, who did not die, returning at the end of time as one of the two witnesses in the book of Revelation.
The woman in that passage of Genesis refers simultaneously to Eve and to a future woman, in the opinion of the Church, in verse 15, for Christ is both the offspring of Eve and of the second Eve, Mary. Whereas in 16, it refers only to Eve, and secondarily in a broader sense to all of fallen womankind.
Not only this but if man was truly free to make his decisions, then how would God know what decision man would make BEFORE man was created? Simply by observing? This shows no interaction of God.
Frankly, I find that illogical. Why would God ensure ONLY the first generation was infallibly teaching Christ's Gospel AT ALL if He didn't intend to ALWAYS protect it???
Are you saying that Paul wrote that "...the church of the living God, the pillar and base of the truth" (1 Tim 3:15) ONLY while HE was alive??? God would have the Church as the pillar of truth only for some 30 years! There is no evidence of that ANYWHERE in the Scriptures, or the writings of ANYONE who came after the first generation! Tell me, why would God only protect the first generation? Don't you think He would want the second generation to have the Truth - by which we are set free??? Are we to believe that God only preached the Gospel unadultered to the very first generation? I can see why Protestantism is so confused...
I would attempt to know by measuring any teaching against the Bible.
Does the Bible ever make itself as the measuring stick of what we believe?
So, God is not the pillar and foundation of the Truth? There are verses that say this?
"But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."
I am not saying that God is not TRUTH. But His Church is for us, for us humans here in the visible world, the pillar and foundation of the truth. Without it, we wander between various doctrines that happen to tickle our ears. Men's intellect is clouded. We NEED the Church, an INFALLIBLE guide, to tell us what Christ taught and objectively so. In the visible world, Christ acts through His Church. Whether He is ministering to people through the ministry of Reconciliation, whether He is healing them of their spiritual wounds, whether He is giving "birth" to them by being "born from above", whether He is sharing of His total self to us through the Eucharist, or whether He is giving us the Truth - the preachings given to the Apostles that have found their way to us.
I don't believe that popularity equals truth.
Since when did being Catholic equate to being "popular"? But that is to be expected, as Christ said that His Church would suffer, just as He did.
But, as I said before, I don't see baptism as necessarily critical.
That is YOUR opinion. You are not infallible, and you would certainly admit that you might be wrong. IF you can be wrong, how can you KNOW you even are "saved"? Christ didn't leave us orphaned. He gave us an infallible guide to KNOW what He left us. The Truth. We KNOW Christ's teachings. (well, "we" don't, but the Church teaches it to those willing to know it). WE are certain that Baptism IS critical for salvation. The early Church who heard the words of the Apostles testify to its necessity - both inside and outside of Scripture, regardless of your opinion.
The problem with your means of coming to Scripture is that you rely totally on your OWN knowledge - what you come to rationalize and what you come across as you read. Did God really intend that we stumble across His teacings, some of them being correct, others not? Did God intend that men have a Master's Degree in Scripture exegesis? To be able to speak the original languages? Hardly. This is a works salvation, brother. You are relying on your own ability to know God's Truth, rather than rely on the Spirit guiding His Church to bring us to all truths.
Faith is what is critical. I can't say I know for sure on this, but it makes sense to me that the vast majority of those who are saved and have achieved any reasonable level of sanctification, choose to be baptized, at least if they never have been, because they know Jesus said we should be
The vast majority of Jews were circumcised into the People of God at the age of eight days. Jesus said "do not keep the little ones away from me". But that is what you do by making your own faith the only means by which we come to God. You are saying that one must EARN God's salvation by believing enough. If you don't believe enough, then your sinner's prayer didn't "take" and your salvation was never accomplished. I find this an interesting turning of the tables...Correct me if I am wrong, brother, but aren't you saying that unless one has enough faith, one cannot come to God? But faith is entirely a gift!
No, God has given His salvation freely to people. For nearly 2000 years, the vast majority of God's people first came into His presence as infants. The Jews understood this concept of "free gift"! The baby did nothing to earn salvation. The parents and community stood in proxy for the infant - promising to raise the child in the faith. Christianity merely continued this with infant baptism.
I can't think of any people I know, whom I'm guessing are saved, who have not been baptized either as an infant or a believer, or as in my case, both :).
God works through the ritual of Baptism, as He promised that He would, as prefigured by Christ's own baptism.
Regards
One key question is "identifiable" to whom? We say that those who are predestined for heaven are named from the beginning of time, so God obviously knows, but we do not as far as others are concerned. We also say that we CAN know about ourselves from scripture, but some have not realized that yet. I'm not sure whether it is a tautology or not, and that may depend on the POV. We explain the way we do because so many, including some of us :), switch back and forth between God's POV and ours. It is so important to distinguish between the two. We can't know with the certainty that God has, but we can know with all human certainty.
The plain meaning of this passage [Hebrews 6:4-8] is that those who fall away from Christ are damned, but the recipients of Paul's letter had not fallen away, but done pleasing works and service.
I suppose I'm with you so far, but I suspect for different reasons. :)
The bolded sections completely transpose cause and effect.
I'm afraid I do not follow you. To which causes and effects are you referring?
Nothing in 1 John 2 states that the sinner was never "saved;" indeed, John anticipates that the recipients of his letter have sinned, but exhorts them to take Jesus seriously by living according to his teachings.
It's interesting that you like a plain meaning in Hebrews, but you don't like the plain meaning in 1 John. Do you agree that the word "light" is associated with salvation and the word "darkness" is associated with an unsaved person? If so, then "still in the darkness" means that such a person is still as he was born, unsaved. The message is that claiming to be in the light does not make it so. The truly saved person will move toward conformity with Christ, so if that doesn't happen, the person remains in the original state, lost. That's how it appears the author is interpreting Hebrews 6.
But I know that I am a miserable sinner whose only hope for salvation is to have faith in God and do as Jesus said, while you are assured that you are one of the elect.
I agree with what you say here AND God assures me that I am of the elect.
One key question is "identifiable" to whom? We say that those who are predestined for heaven are named from the beginning of time, so God obviously knows, but we do not as far as others are concerned. We also say that we CAN know about ourselves from scripture, but some have not realized that yet. I'm not sure whether it is a tautology or not, and that may depend on the POV. We explain the way we do because so many, including some of us :), switch back and forth between God's POV and ours. It is so important to distinguish between the two. We can't know with the certainty that God has, but we can know with all human certainty
I agree that changes in perspective and identity make this subject hard to discuss. But I do not believe that there is any way that we can have assurance that we are going to Heaven. The closest that we can get is to have faith and follow Jesus' teachings.
I'm afraid I do not follow you. To which causes and effects are you referring?Those who hear the Word but ignore it are damned. They do not ignore the Word because they started out damned.
It's interesting that you like a plain meaning in Hebrews, but you don't like the plain meaning in 1 John. Do you agree that the word "light" is associated with salvation and the word "darkness" is associated with an unsaved person? If so, then "still in the darkness" means that such a person is still as he was born, unsaved.
No, I do not take it that way. I do not see salvation as a one-time, initiatory event, but rather a process to be worked out. The "plain meaning" of 1 John cannot be separated from the preceding sentences, which anticipate that its readers may have sinned. Sin is the "darkness;" not following Jesus' commandment to love one another separates us from God, and impedes our salvation.
The message is that claiming to be in the light does not make it so.
We agree on that.
The truly saved person will move toward conformity with Christ, so if that doesn't happen, the person remains in the original state, lost. That's how it appears the author is interpreting Hebrews 6.
No, I disagree. It is choosing to sin that keeps us from God. Yelling "Lord, Lord" doesn't cut it; we have to love one another. We must try to keep in the light, working out our salvation with fear and trembling.
"I can understand your aversion to God being in control of everything. I used to believe just as you about this."
Well, I used to believe just as you do, so that makes us even! :-)
It has little to do with my aversion to God's being in control. I, after all, am not the one who determines the conditions of God's existence.
It has rather everything to do with the consistent traditional understanding of Christianity prior to the Calvinist branch of the Reformation: that man has the free will to choose God or reject him. This traditional understanding had come down from the Apostles. If TULIP had been one of the key teachings of the Apostles, one would expect to find it expounded on in detail in the early Church Fathers.
It is God who seemingly (at the risk of attributing human emotions and experiences to him) was/is averse to having the pinnacle of his creation be a sort of flesh and blood robot, whose existence is that of a marionette who only thinks that he is making decisions every day to sin or not -- to choose God or reject him.
Which God is the more powerful -- a God who must control and predetermine every second of the history of the universe, or the God who creates a universe with which he interacts and treats his created beings with the respect of allowing them to choose to love him or reject him?
If a king has the authority and ability to put anyone to death in his kingdom that he chooses, is the fact that he fails to kill everyone in his kingdom somehow proof that he doesn't have that authority and ability? Would his granting of self-determination to his subjects mean that by definition he really didn't have the authority and ability to compell them to do what he wants?
Does a husband have to control every aspect of his wife's life to be the head of the home? Does a parent need to control every aspect of his child's life in order to be the parent rather than a peer? And these are just poor shadows in our earthly life that only hint at what the relationship between us and God is.
The idea that by God choosing to give free choice to certain of his creatures, he ceased being all-powerful really doesn't make sense. The idea that there are only two choices: a God who has predetermined and forced every event of every second of history, or a God who is buffeted and helpless -- is a false dichotomy.
As an Orthodox Christian, I can see why Calvinists came up with the idea of predestination. God had, in the West, developed into a pretty legalistic and juridical concept. A God who seeks vengeance and bloody satisfaction right and left, and who is seemingly pretty hard to please would leave one in a chronic state of anxiety, no matter how hard one tried to please him.
Calvinism took away this state of anxiety by using St. Augustine's speculations on predestination writ large.
One of the things that sometimes strikes people who explore Orthodoxy is the justaposition of a non-legalistic approach to the faith with what is a very morally and ascetically strict Christian life; and a complete unwillingness to state that one is or is not "saved," with a simultaneous lack of anxiety about one's future.
Arminians seem to think God only interacts after the fact. God as First-Responder.
I think a better perspective is to begin by accepting God's predestining will for all our lives, and then to see everything in light of this truth. If we possess Trinitarian faith in Jesus Christ, then we are assured everything, good and not-so-good, is for our benefit and will bring glory to Him who loves us.
"And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, FEAR NOT; I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen" -- Revelation 1:17-18"After these things the word of the LORD came unto Abram in a vision, saying, FEAR NOT, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward." -- Genesis 15:1
All these months of discussions on Predestination have strengthened my belief in God's active and total control of His creation.
Anything less demotes God to a member of the audience, rather than the writer/producer/director -- in that order. He thought it; He did it; He continues to do it. All for His glory.
Well, I looked up one of "my guys", Matthew Henry, to see what he said about it and he actual agreed with the footnotes. He gave an example of sin leading to physical death as a capital murder in a land with the death penalty. Another example is what happened to Ananias and Sapphira. I don't see it as contradictory for my side to say that all sin leads to spiritual death. For example:
Rom. 6:23 : For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
---------------
From what I gather from our previous posts, you don't think our sins separate us from God at all - and now, even the slightest sin kills our soul?
I'm not sure to which posts you are referring. Sin is THE THING that eternally separates us from God. That's the bad part. The good part is that, for His elect, Christ paid the penalty for all those sins out of justice and love. It is sort of like the old story of the judge who found his best friend appearing before him on a $200 speeding ticket. The judge knew the friend could not pay and faced jail. Out of justice, the judge found his friend guilty, then out of love he came down from the bench, reached into his own wallet, and paid the cashier the $200.
Perhaps you should consider reading 1 John quickly. He talks over and over about obeying the commandments. THAT is how we know we are saved and have eternal life...
I don't see any problem. John talks about both having faith and walking in faith. I agree with that and it is a primo example of why OSAS doesn't work on its own. John never says we can never know until after we die, he speaks in the present tense. We can know now. I thought you didn't accept that. Walking in faith is "an" evidence that our faith is true. Not walking in faith, on a permanent basis, is STRONG evidence that the original profession of faith was not true.
Of course, it must be left up to God to sort out "close cases". I was remembering my early comment that perhaps I was unknowingly "invincible" in college :), but I may need to rethink that.
FK, God's foreknowledge can be likened to you going to see a movie and knowing how it will end. If you then go with someone else who did not see it to see the same movie and participate in the viewing of the movie, nothing will surprize you because you already know the outcome, but the other person doesn't. Thus, God looks at our choices yesterday, today and tomorrow and knows what choices we will make and where these choices will take us. It does not mean that He makes those choices for us, subliminally or overtly.
Well, you say that God's EVERYTHING that He gives to us is only the power to choose, not God choosing us, as my side says. Since God's EVERYTHING fails so often with people not choosing God, I don't see it as having a ton of value. God loses so often if He really gave us EVERYTHING we have and desires all to be saved. God's EVERYTHING evidently does not include an offer no reasonable person could refuse. Heaven or hell? What rational person would choose hell if he really had EVERYTHING he needed? So, that must mean that something comes from us apart from God to distinguish between those who choose Him and those who do not. If not, and if God stands out of the way on the final choice, then what is that "thing" to distinguish between those who choose and those who don't?
Well, the same holds true for "sinner's prayer" as well. Otherwise, why do so many feel the need to repeat it, or later wonder whether it "took"? This makes the "sinner's prayer" a works-oriented salvational tool.
No, I think there's quite a difference. We say our salvation is complete from the beginning of time from God's point of view. The sinner's prayer just help us to know it too. It doesn't cause election from God's POV, but it is necessary from our POV. God ordained that His elect would come to Him through some equivalent of a sinner's prayer (faith). We don't believe that God sits there with His giant eraser, constantly blotting out names in the Book of Life on a second to second basis, and then re-writing them back in later as the case may warrant.
There is no "need" to say the sinner's prayer more than once if it was effective the first time. But of course, many people don't yet have a full understanding of their faith and may feel a need to say it again. There is nothing "wrong" with saying the sinner's prayer multiple times, it just isn't needed a second time from the POV of a mature Christian. My pastor actually alluded to this idea this morning by comparing it to saying "I do" at marriage. Does anyone really understand all that it means when they say it? NO. Some people repeat their vows, but likewise it is unnecessary, but useful to the people involved if they so choose to do it.
The article merely outlays the promises made to the elect.
So every epistle that uses the familial "you can know", or some form of it, doesn't at all refer to the readers of the letter, or to Christians in general? Instead it refers only to the mysterious elect and no one can know he is a member of that elect until after death. That would make these some very strange letters.
Again, as you have suggested, we STILL continue to be free to sin. And you again have stated that sin kills the soul - which means that God has left it. Will we enter heaven with a dead soul? If we willingly turn away from God, what happens over and over in the Scriptures?
Sin does kill the soul UNLESS it is reconciled and fully paid for. Christ paid for all the sins of His elect, past, present, and future. Those with dead souls do not enter Heaven, because they are not in Christ, not of the elect. If we willingly turn away from God, many different things happen over and over again in scripture. Some are smoten (?) :) immediately, some die lost (Judas), and some are forgiven and come roaring back (David, Peter). I don't think there is any set formula in this case.
Intimate details about one's parents are not a necessary prerequisite of friendship. I, incidentally, never shared any such with my roommates, and I have kept friendship with some of them to this day. Remember the "honor thy mother" part in the scripture?
I have never been talking about sex talk here! :) If you are at the water cooler at work and someone asks you if you have any brothers or sisters, do you really feel you are betraying your parents sex lives if you answer?
It is you who takes the scripture that does not say anything about Mary and Joseph following the birth of Christ, and insists on the least favorable to Mary interpretation, ... Was Lot Abraham's brother?
Believe me, I have nothing against Mary. I love Mary. :) She must have been extremely special to be the one chosen. What I do have is a ton of scripture that appears to apply to all humans. My view is that Mary was 100% human and not divine. I thought you agreed with that. If there were exceptions in the Bible for Mary to all those verses, or even just some exceptions that would make the rule apparent, then I would be with you. But, there are none, absolutely none. So, what can I conclude from my POV?
No, Lot was not Abraham's biological brother, but I have already said that I know the Bible sometimes uses the term as you do. I could just as easily say: "was Andrew the biological brother of Peter"? Or, was everyone is those days an only child? :)
If James was Mary's stepson from a previous marriage of Joseph, and therefore older, then his age, close to Mary's, would not make him a good caregiver because he might become frail together or even before Mary.
OK, at least for argument's sake, I can see that. Thanks much for the links.
That's interesting, I didn't know that was the Catholic position. We're probably not really too far apart on this, as I don't think small children are held accountable either. As you may very well also, I just know from personal experience that they are capable of making decisions, even to the point of repeating them over and over when they know darn well better. :)
FK: I love invincible ignorance.
You're losing it rapidly...
BWAHAHAHAHA! But when it comes to new and different ways of being ignorant, you'll find that I am a rather resourceful fellow. Just ask my wife. :)
I did, and it was very interesting and reasonable sounding post. Had it been to me I would have had a few comments/questions:
The problem with this interpretation [that Jesus had half-siblings] is that, according to Scripture, some of the people listed as his brothers appear to not have had the same Mother as Jesus.
And along the same lines:
Another problem with this theory [of multiple Christs with God and Mary as "parents"] is that the Mother of two of these brothers is still alive at the time of the Crucifixion, which would mean that Joseph either divorced Mary later on, was actually a divorcee at the time of his espousal to Mary, or that Joesph was married to more than one woman. Those are all problematic contingencies if we attempt to force them upon Scripture.
I am unfamiliar with these scriptures and would very much like to know what they are. Is one of them from a later statement : "Elsewhere, however, we learn that Joses and James actually had a different mother. (Mr 15:40, Mr 15:47.) If so, is it really clear that all these passages are talking about the exact same people? We've already seen how many "Marys" there are, and how many there were named James. Plus, even in Mark 15:41 it says there were many other women there.
Another interpretation is that these "brothers" were cousins of some sort or other. (First cousin, second cousin, third cousin two times removed....) It's not an unreasonable argument, in that Scripture often mentions brothers and sisters when it is in fact seems to be talking about some other relationship. There are many examples of this, ...
I agree there are examples of this, and examples of "brother" being used in purely the spiritual sense. To this day we refer to "our brothers and sisters in Christ". But especially in Mt. 13:55, et seq., that identifies Mary by name and Joseph by profession, and then lists brothers by name (and unnamed sisters), it just seems the flow of the sentence is meant to mean biological half-brothers. The people couldn't have known the truth about the Virgin birth, so it would have been normal for them to think of regular bio-brothers, since they identified in the same sentence what they thought to be both his bio-parents.
"So the soldiers did this. But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. (John 19:25)
Now, we can see that there were a lot of Marys at the foot of the Cross with Jesus when he was dying. The Scripture I would like to call your attention to, however, is "standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary...." Now, if we take this translation in an entirely literal sense, Mary has a sister named Mary. ... Perhaps a more plausible reading of this verse is to say that the language used in this Scripture did not distinguish between sister and cousin or other relative, even though our language forces us to translate in such a way as use a word that either conveys one class of relationship or the other.
My simple little interpretation of this would be that the verse speaks of four people: (1) Mary mother of Jesus, (2) her sister who is unnamed, (3) Mary the wife of Clopas, and (4) Mary Magdalene.
I don't see it as contradictory for my side to say that all sin leads to spiritual death.
The argument was that you claimed that ALL sin leads to spiritual death. Certainly, murder leads to spiritual death. ALL sin POTENTIALLY leads to death in that a person can make a habit out of sinning, gradually losing any contrition or desire to make amends. It is a common argument of the saints to say that minor, venial sins gone unchecked can lead to mortal, deadly sins. But 1 John clearly tells us that ALL sins do not kill the soul:
If anyone sees his brother sinning a sin which does not lead to death, he will ask, and He will give him life for those who commit sin not leading to death. 1 John 5:16
I don't see either in the Old Testament or the New Testament where God expects a man to be absolutely perfect and sinless to be considered righteous in God's eyes. Many men and women of the Bible were called "righteous", but all had their charecter faults, and most turned from God at least in a temporary moment in the telling of their stories. Abraham lied. David committed adultery and murder. Zechariah doubted God. Joseph had considered putting Mary away. While sin hurts our relationship with God, it does not kill the soul. We are not separated from God as a result of every sin. I believe the concept that you mention is a Protestant line of thought, not a Biblical one.
Sin is THE THING that eternally separates us from God. That's the bad part. The good part is that, for His elect, Christ paid the penalty for all those sins out of justice and love.
Ah, another Protestant error. Christ died for ALL men, not just the elect. I believe this forgets that God loves all men unconditionally. Here is where we can easily misunderstand each other. Catholics believe that there is "objective redemption", which is Christ's one sacrifice for all men that opened the gates of heaven potentially to all men - "God desires all men be saved". However, we also believe in "subjective redemption", which is how the individual is saved. How do we apply Christ's work to our individual self? It is apparent that not all men choose to use Christ's gifts and blessings won by Him. God offers us freedom. However, some CHOOSE not to see God's ways as "freedom". Some people choose to follow their own will, calling THAT freedom. God calls us to repent and believe the Gospel, the Good News - that God has provided objective redemption to all men. The Call is not heeded by all men, though, is it...
John never says we can never know until after we die, he speaks in the present tense.
Good call. Not the future tense! We can "know" TODAY!!! Thus, we can't call ourselves ABSOLUTELY the elect, since we can't see into the future. Sin exists. Even for those who think they are of the elect, those who are walking in Christ TODAY. Isn't it clear that men must persevere in Christ? The future is unclear to US.
Not walking in faith, on a permanent basis, is STRONG evidence that the original profession of faith was not true.
You are basing your salvation on an event of the past that you have NO control over anymore. Your salvation is not dependent on what you proclaimed 10 years ago, but whether you are walking in Christ today! I don't see the reason for "wondering" whether your proclamation was "true" 10 years ago. What does that have to do with today? By your fruit, you shall be known - TODAY. But if you fail to yield fruit "today", then you are to be rooted up and tossed into the fire... The Divine Gardener will do what is necessary for us to bear fruit - IF we accept His pruning (sufferings and testings) and His watering (graces). Does the "yield of a tree" this year depend on how the seed "proclaimed" its faith 10 years ago?
We can know if we are saved by how we act "today", not 10 years ago. Also, we cannot presume that we WILL be saved 10 years from now based on what we do today. Past performance does not guarantee future results... All of this, of course, is from our point of view, not God's. We don't know His point of view on our destinies.
Regards
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.