Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
God is also jealous, wrathful and protects His holiness.
I see and understand both sets of attributes of God. You wish to ignore the second.
It is not a matter of ignoring the second, but rather of understanding where being and truth reside. The early Fathers of the church applied the term skia (shadow) to the Old Testament. Truth and reality reside in that which casts the shadow, not in the shadow itself.
If someone is walking toward you from the east at sunrise, his shadow reaches you before he does. The role of the shadow is to herald the approach of your friend. But who would you rather grasp ahold of, the shadow or the person? And does the shadow give a true image of the person?
That is the relationship between the Old and New Testaments.
Quite right stripes -- God does feely offer His gift to everyone.
I really don't know what the Apostles taught outside of scripture, and I can't speak to how much of it was written about by others. My answer was to point out that both sides believe in things that may require some inference from scripture. TULIP is based only on scripture and no outside writings. That makes it different from much Tradition, which is not mentioned at all in the Bible. If any teaching is rooted firmly in scripture, like TULIP, then it carries 100 times the credibility with me as any teaching that does not appear in scripture.
... then how is it that there is not one of the early Church fathers that Calvinists can point to and say: "There, now that man teaches exactly what we teach, worshiped exactly as we worship, and is one of us."
Well, you all and Catholics can't even come close to the standard you use here, so I don't know why it should be applied to our side. I believe Harley has given lots of evidence that Augustine held many views we would find favorable.
Even if one were to claim that the Church became corrupt and only kept those writings that support its approach, this wouldn't explain why the "official Church" wouldn't have records of how it had stamped out the proto-Reformed "heresies." We have many writings that report in great detail various heresies.
I really can't speak to which records the Church kept and which they did not. I can't know. But, if it is true that the Apostles taught doctrine that was very opposed to Reformed theology, then a very unappealing (to me) alternative presents itself. Either the Apostles taught in complete riddles, or they wrote in complete riddles, or both. It would mean that scripture does not mean what it says. To me, that goes against any idea of a revealed faith.
On the other hand, your question of how key teachings about the Virgin Mary aren't in the Bible really isn't terribly on point. After all, we Orthodox have never claimed that everything we believe is explicitly spelled out in Scripture, so why would you expect to find it all there?
I wasn't trying to say that every belief you have must be in the Bible, even though I hold that view. I'm sure there is plenty of Tradition that does not offend the Bible and which is fine. Many of the rituals we have in our church are not spelled out word for word in the Bible, but are Bible-based. Rather, I was pointing out that since Mary is so cherished in the Church, it just seems odd that extremely important doctrine concerning her, that differentiates her from all others, is no where in scripture. What other figure of her stature is comparatively overlooked in terms of scripture?
Keep in mind also that unlike in Roman Catholicism, the vast majority of monastics in the Orthodox Church are laymen. Very few are ordained clergy ... In the Orthodox Church, being a member of the clergy is viewed as an act of sacrifice and service, and not one of authority.
I didn't know that at all. Then, do your clergy have the literal authority to forgive sins? Do they have the literal authority to stand in the place of Christ and act as Him?
As it is, the kinds of things that happened in the Catholic Church after Vatican II are nigh on to unthinkable in the Orthodox Church. The laity just wouldn't stand for it.
It sounds like your laity is very similar to ours. As much as we love him, if our pastor ever tried to pull anything like what you may be referring to, he would be out in the street on his butt in three seconds! :) Forever!
Nope, [Tetelestai] means "It has been finished". There is no interpretation of that word which can torture it into meaning "paid in full". Where did you get that idea?
That came from my Bible. The underlying point was whether Jesus really meant "finished" when He said "finished" or was He again speaking in secret code, that only the Church could uncover, to mean that Jesus only really meant "temporarily"or "potentially" finished. Since Greek really is Greek to me, this is the best I could find on a translation. Notice the entire definition denotes finality in the word "finished" and also includes the idea of payment.
Not only are there no such references in Scripture, we are expressly cautioned NOT to pray to anyone but Christ. (I posted the following Scripture the other day. I really like it, so I'll post it again. 8~)
For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you. God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device. And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead." -- Acts 17:22-31"Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.
It means that God's redemptive work in time has been accomplished, completed, finished. That God, through Divine Economy, made our salvation possible.
So, if after God's redemptive work is fully accomplished and fully completed and fully finished, all we all get is a SHOT at salvation, what did people have before His work was finished? Obviously, people in the OT were saved, so they, too, had a shot. What changed, if anything, after Jesus said "It is finished"? You seem to be saying that Jesus really didn't finish anything at all, Jesus only handed the baton over to man and said "you finish it".
And I stand by my statement. You feel that in order to be perfect you must have complete wisdom and knowledge. I don't.
Your rednition of Genesis 3:2-3 is likewise imperfect. Eeve did know that she may not eat or touch it the forbidden fruit:
Please show me where God commanded that they would die if they touched the fruit.
No wonder you think the New Testament is "lovey-dovey." Too much love for you to handle.
Please....
You totally misunderstood me, FK. I am not sure if you know what Divine Economy is. Anyway, the Old Covenant was finished and a way was made for the New Covenant to begin. The work Christ came to do was finished. Salvation now became possible for all mankind, past, present and future.
I am not ignoring anything. First of all, God is "passionate". Jealousy is a sin and a mistranslation. God's wrath is shown by allowing men to continue in their sin, giving them what they desire. And of course God protects His holiness. That is why NO ONE shall enter heaven unclean.
Regards
Good points. A good analogy of the OT with respect to the NT.
Regards
Yes, a perfect being is perfect, HD. You can stand next to your oxymoron and even hug it for all I care: to be perfect means to have no flaws.
Please show me where God commanded that they would die if they touched the fruit
He didn't; that was her mistaken belief. But please show me where the serpent gives the fruit to Eve, as you asserted earlier.
Gen 3:6 "And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat..."
All the serpent did was to say that they would not die if they ate the fruit.
As to why she believed the serpent is another question. It seems she followed the same path we all follow: looks good, feels good, tastes good -- must be good. Have you ever made a choice based on that when you should have known better? If you are human, you have.
Ultimately, it was Eve who had to convince herself that the tree did look good, taste good and was good for wisdom. Once she convinced herself that she needed all that, she sinned. We do what Eve did every day, HD. Because we are not perfect but always make decisions that seem good to us (that automatically excludes God), because we ultimately only love ourselves first and foremost.
If Jesus walked the earth today, was a poor unemployed carpenter and called on people to give up their SUVs, homes, wives, children, everything they owened or worked for, or loved, and follow Him, how many do you think would do that?
It's easy to criticize, but most people have faith only on their lips. Most people have difficulty giving God more than one hour on a Sunday, even that much. We always do what is good for us. Because no one loves Gof with all his heart, mind and soul, not one.
"So, if after God's redemptive work is fully accomplished and fully completed and fully finished, all we all get is a SHOT at salvation, what did people have before His work was finished?
That's right, a shot at it, the same thing Adam and Eve had. The OT saints, except in a couple of instances, went to "the place of the dead" or hades upon their deaths. This is why the icon the of the Resurrection shows Christ releasing the OT righteous dead upon his Resurrection.
What changed is that by the Incarnation, we were restored to the possibility of fulfilling our created purpose lost at the Fall.
... There are dozens of verses that speak of the Lord as our helper. I see Scripture clearly showing how we cooperate with God's graces.
Thank you for all of the verses in between these statements. But as you implicitly admit, none of them have anything to do with the concept of "Co-". For "Co-" to apply, BOTH parties would have to help each other. Then it would fit. But as you say, all of your verses only say that God is the only helper, and the person is only the one being helped. There is no "Co-". You give no verses that say we help God.
Is that wrong to believe that God has given us the grace to cooperate in His continuing of creation?
It is only incorrect to take credit for it, just like it would be incorrect for the cookie daughter to take credit for the cookies.
Your effort to "protect" God's sovereignty by denying that we do anything is not necessary. It should be clear that God ALLOWS us to participate in His work - HIS OWN WILL is that we do.
Well, I have to admit that I am one to protect God's sovereignty. :) But, I do not say that we do not participate. Of course we do, and as you said, it is God's will that we do. Otherwise, we would all just sit here and do nothing until we died. :) My "protection" is all about who gets the credit and who makes what happen.
By closing your mouth, rather than spread the Gospel to co-workers who are not Christians, you DO have the power and authority to NOT be a co-redeemer. By acting as a Christian, you are a light to the world of Christ's work.
??? What does this have to do with whether I have the power and authority to be a co-redeemer? In certain cases, I suppose I do have the power to not be a light unto Christ. But even if I did everything right, and I witnessed my little heart out, and then the person came to Jesus, I would not consider myself a co-redeemer at all. I would consider myself a very blessed witness to the sole work of Christ. Here I am, doing the protection thing again. :)
St. Basil once said that if anyone said that Mary was merely like a pipe through which water ran in regards to our Savior, then that person is impious person. God was not a parasite...
Although it's funny, I don't know what is meant by the parasite comment. God uses us as vessels all the time to accomplish His will. Those who love Him are willing. Mary was such. I would even go so far as to say that I don't see Mary as equivalent to the pipe above, because after the water has left the pipe, the pipe is meaningless concerning the water. I think if one could have done a DNA sample on the man Jesus back then, it would have shown that Mary was His mother. Nothing wrong with that, and of course she loved Him and raised Him, etc.
FK: "To say that it happens simultaneously throws the whole issue beyond human comprehension. If you agree to that, then it appears that your real answer is that you don't know."
More properly, we call it a mystery. We don't know EVERYTHING about God and how He works upon time.
OK, that's all I really could have hoped for. :) So, how it is possible that God chooses His elect simultaneously with His elect choosing Him is a mystery. Of course our side would say that from either God's or our POV, He chose His elect first. I can know that because God existed before man, and scripture says He chose us first.
We can believe the message of the Church because we believe that it was led by a person who resurrected from the dead - clear evidence that His message was from God, who alone can raise the dead.(emphasis added)
Acts 9:36-37, 40-41 : "36 In Joppa there was a disciple named Tabitha (which, when translated, is Dorcas), who was always doing good and helping the poor. 37 About that time she became sick and died, and her body was washed and placed in an upstairs room. ... 40 Peter sent them all out of the room; then he got down on his knees and prayed. Turning toward the dead woman, he said, "Tabitha, get up." She opened her eyes, and seeing Peter she sat up. 41 He took her by the hand and helped her to her feet. Then he called the believers and the widows and presented her to them alive."
[Whispering...] Joe, ... come over to the dark side, with me. Believe that this was really the work of Jesus and not Peter. Just like with all the other things we have been talking about. No one has to know, I won't tell. You're right, Joe, no one can raise the dead except God. I can feel the conflict within you. Let go, Joe. With the word, use the force... :)
We do not publically dissent (we are not given authority) from the Church's teachings. A theologian who has properly considered all of the knowledge available would be in his right to disagree with the pre-defined belief of Mary's Assumption.
What is the difference between you and a theologian? Before asking this stupid question, I looked it up in the dictionary and all it said was "one learned in theology". (Thank you Mr. dictionary :) You fit that. Is it an official "office" within the Church?
First, I don't know if your bible version says the word "virgin" or "young woman" in this verse. If the former, you are using the Septaugint version, the latter is the Hebrew version. As I said, ALL prophesy has multiple meanings. The prophet is speaking directly to someone present during HIS time. The footnote is correct.
[On Is. 7:14 :] Well, then thanks for sticking up for my Bible :) In this case, I'm just not sure I buy it. :) As you know it is NIV. The footnotes are by Charles Ryrie. Here's what the verse says:
Is. 7:14 : 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.
How can ALL prophecy have multiple meanings? When Jesus said the temple would be destroyed and then rebuilt in three days, what was the double meaning? What is the double meaning of the person referred to in Is. 53? And this:
Ps. 22:16 : Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet.
How do you explain the double meaning of this, seeing as how crucifixion had not been invented yet?
"Since Greek really is Greek to me, this is the best I could find on a translation. Notice the entire definition denotes finality in the word "finished" and also includes the idea of payment."
With all due respect, FK, I suggest that your source for translation may have spun the translation to justify a misunderstanding of the Incarnation. Try reading +Athanasius the Great "On the Incarnation". Its available on line and is what The Church always and everywhere has believed.
http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/history/ath-inc.htm
Not merely a pipe indeed! A great and early sait, +Ephrem the Syrian, noted for his profound prayers and poetry, wrote this about her as one of his 18 poems collected in a book called "The Harp of the Spirit":
"Come, let us wonder at the virgin most pure, wondrous in herself, unique in creation, she gave birth, yet knew no man; her pure soul with wonder was filled, daily her mind gave praise in joy at the twofold wonder: her virginity preserved, her child most dear. Blessed is He who shone forth from her!"
The dictionary doesn't make that claim. Even in the human world, one can help another in a one-way exchange. There is nothing in the definition of "co-" that demands a two-way exchange of aid. That is ridiculous, furthermore, when discussing God. Which CHRISTIAN would even make that claim? Do you really think Catholics believe that WE help God do anything, as if He couldn't do it without us?
You then later show me that you DO understand what I am talking about:
But, I do not say that we do not participate. Of course we do, and as you said, it is God's will that we do. Otherwise, we would all just sit here and do nothing until we died. :) My "protection" is all about who gets the credit and who makes what happen
Yes, we participate. And God gets the credit. However, where there is free will involved, God grants us a reward for our participation. Thus, we do receive credit from God. God rewards us when He commands us to REPENT - and we repent...
It is only incorrect to take credit for it, just like it would be incorrect for the cookie daughter to take credit for the cookies.
Does the loving mother scold her child when she proudly tells her father "Daddy, look what me and mommy did"... In your view of God, the mother would yell at the top of her lungs "HOW DARE YOU TAKE CREDIT FOR MAKING THE COOKIES! I AM THE COOKIE MAKER. YOU MUST NOW BE PUNISHED!!! ARRGGHHH!" This is utterly ridiculous in the real world. What makes you think God is below us on such matters? Doesn't He love to share with His loved ones His glory? God highly exalts us - see Mary's Magnificat when she speaks with Elizabeth in Luke 1.
??? What does this have to do with whether I have the power and authority to be a co-redeemer?
If you are prompted by the Spirit to speak about Christ to an unbeliever, but you refuse out of some shyness or whatever, your power of speech has been inhibited, and the Word of God does not go out to that person. Is this a trick question?
Although it's funny, I don't know what is meant by the parasite comment. God uses us as vessels all the time to accomplish His will.
A parasite uses the host without any care of the host, solely for its own purpose. God does not act that way, but chooses to involve us in His loving work. God doesn't have to come through man's actions to spread His Word!!! When you witness to someone and they seem to heed what you say, don't you feel a sense of joy? That you were part of the equation of God coming to that person? Doesn't the daughter making the cookies also feel this joy, of being part of the equation of doing something with her mother?
I think if one could have done a DNA sample on the man Jesus back then, it would have shown that Mary was His mother. Nothing wrong with that...
Whew! Wonderful... Doesn't Scripture tell us this also?
Of course our side would say that from either God's or our POV, He chose His elect first. I can know that because God existed before man, and scripture says He chose us first.
God acts WITHIN time by keeping it in existence, but He is not subject to it. If he foresaw EVERYTHING during the first day of creation, doesn't it follow that He "chose" us then - but at the same time, He also foresaw our actions in time? The Scripture speaks from man's point of view - God chose us first. And He did. But from God's point of view, His choosing and our choosing happen simultaneously - there is no passage of time that intervenes between His view of His choice and our choice (which is based on His grace that He gives us).
Believe that this was really the work of Jesus and not Peter (the raising of Tabbatha). Just like with all the other things we have been talking about. No one has to know, I won't tell.
Of course - and yet, God chose to raise this girl THROUGH Peter. Wow. Peter baked some delicious cookies, Daddy would say...
What is the difference between you and a theologian? Before asking this stupid question, I looked it up in the dictionary and all it said was "one learned in theology". (Thank you Mr. dictionary :) You fit that. Is it an official "office" within the Church?
Uh, I think it is someone more properly in an official, paid vocation. Such as a college professor, or a Catholic writer (for pay). Theologians used to be mostly clergy (they were the only educated ones), but now, everyone has an opinion! Theologians do not have the same "ranking" in the Church as they once had, because of so many views that seem to border on heresy.
How can ALL prophecy have multiple meanings? When Jesus said the temple would be destroyed and then rebuilt in three days, what was the double meaning?
The hearers of this thought Jesus was speaking about the actual Temple - while Jesus was speaking of His own Body. Thus, multiple meanings.
What is the double meaning of the person referred to in Is. 53?
The nation Israel is the suffering servant of the Lord - while Christians interpret it as Jesus Christ. See, multiple meanings to different people.
Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet.
Crucifixion had not been invented yet? When was it "invented"? From my studies of military history BEFORE becoming a practicing Christian, I remember it going back quite some time - the Greeks practiced it before Alexander the Great. Again, I would imagine Jews would refer this to mean something other than crucifixion, but I don't have their interpretation on it. To them, it probably is just a form of describing persecution, like when the Psalms talk about eathing one's flesh. Or do you believe the Psalmist was refering to cannibals?
Regards
If a person has difficulties in reconciling the God of the Old Testament with the God of the New, it suggests to me there is some fundamental error in their theology. There is no difference. People came to God through Judaism in the Old Testament (Caleb and Ruth to name two) just as people now come to God through Christianity. The only difference was the old covenant was imperfect. It was through the completed work of Christ that God placed His Spirit permanently in us to cause us to walk according to His commands.
Christians do not like to talk much these days about the wrath of God. However our Lord Jesus talked far more about hell and damnation then He did of the love of God. The God of the Old Testament that flooded the world in Genesis 6 is the very same Christ that will destroy the world with fire described in Revelations in the New Testament. If someone wants to talk about the love of Christ as it is used in its distorted framework of today, then they need to pay close attention to the wrath poured out in Revelation. This wrath was so great that even the angels stood speechless for a half an hour.
This isn't to say God's wrath is to be focused on exclusively. Its simply that if you understand the wrath and judgment that awaits the world, then you fully can appreciate the grace, love and mercy that God has richly bestowed on us Christians. But God doesn't show love to those who are outside of His covenant. Not to Jews. Not to Hindus. Not to Buddhists. He does not stand outside some door knocking hoping we will open the door. He takes the initiative and, in His great love, grace and mercy, seek and save that which was lost. He drags us out of Sodom.
The trouble is that is difficult for some to comprehend, God doesn't do this for everyone. He goes to the pool of troubled waters but tells only one to pick up their pallet and walk.
That is where the truth resides.
Sure there is, as you pointed out when you quoted St. Augustine and the relationship between the OT and the NT. God gradually revealed Himself - first hazily through the prophets of the OT, and more concretely and completely through Jesus Christ. We as Christians are to read the OT in light of the NT revelation given to us. Thus, this talk about a jealous, wrathful God is not the true picture of Whom Christ revealed.
the completed work of Christ that God placed His Spirit permanently in us to cause us to walk according to His commands.
Where does the Scripture say that the Spirit is PERMANENTLY in us?
Christians do not like to talk much these days about the wrath of God. However our Lord Jesus talked far more about hell and damnation then He did of the love of God.
That's utterly false. While Christ mentions hell on several occasions, He mentions love numerous times...And besides, your idea of "wrath of God" differs from the NT idea. For example, read Romans 1:
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man--and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them up to vile passions" Romans 1:18-26
God's wrath is not seen as an active power that reprobates, but a passive one that allows the wicked to "dig their own grave". A careful reading of the Psalms also yields the same concept. It is the wicked who are to blame for their separation from God.
If someone wants to talk about the love of Christ as it is used in its distorted framework of today, then they need to pay close attention to the wrath poured out in Revelation
Few people interpret Revelations as literal history of the end of the world, but symbolic, apocalyptic language. "A three feet deep river of blood flowing through the streets?" Considering 4 quarts of blood per person, how many people would it take to get 3 feet of blood to flow down the streets of Jerusalem? This is symbolic language!
But God doesn't show love to those who are outside of His covenant
God desires that ALL men be saved - He died for the sin of ALL men.
He does not stand outside some door knocking hoping we will open the door.
"Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. " Rev 3:20
Note, it says "IF ANY MAN...."
The trouble is that is difficult for some to comprehend, God doesn't do this for everyone
God's graces are available for everyone. Otherwise, why would Ezekiel write:
But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live. Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: [and] not that he should return from his ways, and live? Ez 18:21-24
The problem is that you don't understand God's great love for ALL men - and that some men refuse this love.
Regards
There are only two saints I have real affection for, the first is Our Lord's Blessed Mother and the other is John the Baptist.
The Magnificat is one of the most beautiful prayers ever, and I think that Mary's plaintive cry to God, her thanks for raising the lowly and lowering the haughty hearkens back to some of the Psalms, where David is praising God for smiting his enemies and the proud and the unjust. There is a continuity there that I really like.
However, I was never really able to form a bond with her as the creature that Catholics assert she is or was. When I would kneel before her statue, I was never able to formulate a natural dialogue. I was always asking myself how to phrase my prayer, should it be "dear Mary, please relay the following to Jesus for me..." Always very, very unnatural for me.
Part of the reason for that is because as a kid a nun had put it in my head that I was immoral, and she also put it in writing, so I never knew how I could approach this creature who was sinless from beginning to end. How could it be possible for me, filthy inside as I was, to approach this pure figure? It wasn't as if she could forgive my sins, only Jesus could do that, and as I grew to have a deeper relationship with Jesus, to approach her seemed unnecessary, and also seemed to take something away from the Power and Glory of Christ. That, coupled with my sense that the unclean couldn't approach the clean, made her somewhat of an impediment to me in my relationship with Jesus.
Also, in Scripture, the dialogue that Jesus has with his Mother seems a little on the harsh side, and so you never get from Scripture anything near a mirror image of the way Our Lord's Blessed Mother is asserted to be by Catholicism. But neither can I totally forget her.
The Passion of The Christ did an excellent job in portraying Mary as a Mother, the scene where she is soaking up His Blood in anguished fervor is how I see Our Lord's Blessed Mother: The Mary of the Magnificat and of her Son's Passion.
And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
These Scriptures really speak to me, Dr. E., thanks.
Jo: Yes, it is paid in full. All we have to do now it to go to the bank and withdraw against this infinite account. We do it all the time when we ask for forgiveness. IF it was done in the sense that we no longer have to ask forgiveness or receive Christ's graces applied to us, then why would Jesus say : ... [John 20:22-23]
I don't know that I understand your analogy. Once a debt is paid in full, the account is closed. The balance is zero. There is no account from which to draw. It is finished.
I see Christ paying for the sins of His elect and our continual asking of God for forgiveness of our sins as two separate issues. What Christ did on the cross was perfect and perfectly complete. He paid for the sins of His elect and forgave them their sins past, present, and future. When we ask God for forgiveness now for our sins, it is not to earn our way into heaven. (I know you have said before that you do not believe in that, but, suddenly, now we have to go to this bank of yours and do works to "make a withdrawl" to get our salvation after Christ finished His work on the cross. Maybe this goes back to "works" only being for pay, which again stands the scripture on its head. The scripture doesn't say what it says.)
Asking for forgiveness, after being saved, is an obedience to God, as He commands that we do so. It is for our own good, and when we obey Him we love Him. It is part of our sanctification.
"The time is fulfilled, and the Kingdom of God is at hand; repent ye and believe the Gospel" Mark 1:15 Doesn't this imply that we have the choice to do one or the other?
Not at all. One thing Jesus was doing is teaching us that the whole world is a mission field from our POV. Of course, He already knew who would be saved and who would be lost. Yet, He spoke to many of the lost anyway. Why would He waste His time?
"He that believes on him is not condemned, but he that does not believe is condemned already because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God" John 3:18
Thus, forgiveness of sins is based on REPENTING. It is conditional, brother.
He that is predestined to be of the elect will believe and not be condemned, etc. Do you believe in single predestination or not? :) For the elect, the forgiveness of sins is based on what Christ did on the cross. Repentance, for the elect, is a future included event.
Things are not black and white. I think Paul is talking more about a general way of acting, not our each and every sin or good deed moves us in and out of being slaves to sin, or slaves to righteousness. Does the latter become the former EVERY TIME THEY SIN, and vice versus? This would be a DAILY back and forth! Thus, one venial sin doesn't kill the soul.
But your whole faith is based on a ping-pong salvation model. :) Confess today and you are saved. Commit mortal sin tomorrow and you are lost forever. Go back to confession the next day, and you are saved again. Don't you go back and forth again and again your whole lives? This seems inconsistent with what you are saying above.
We have different views of "being saved", as I have painfully told you. How could David be damned if he hadn't died yet before his contrition. He was in an "unrighteous status" with God. He was not considered righteous in God's eyes as a result of his sin. But when he returned to God, David was restored.
I know that we have different ideas of salvation, but when you say that a person's status can't be known until death, even if a hypothetical, then you are evading. I have been told by Catholics on this thread that if you commit a mortal sin, and never are forgiven, and there are no special "outs", then the person is lost. That's the ping-pong model. In all of my examples such as this, it is assumed that nothing changes. My point was that under your system, if David never did ask forgiveness, then he would have been damned.
FK: "Here is where we go back to the "time" and "simultaneous" issue, so I'll hold until I read your response to my earlier post."
God saw David in his mother's womb, In the shepherd's field, slaying Goliath, committing adultery, morning over his sick infant, weeping over Absalom, and dying all at once. What's the problem? God saw David's return to Him within time.
Your original comment was: "Is someone in Christ when a Christian murders or commits adultery? You be the judge. There is more to being a Christian than a name. Only those who DO THE WILL OF THE FATHER IN HEAVEN shall enter the Kingdom." I responded "You mean like David, on both counts? ..."
My problem is that you are "simultaneously" (OH-HO) using God both inside and outside of time to suit your purposes. When you make a point, God is inside time and magically does what you need Him to do. Of course, when I make a point, God is magically outside of time and so nothing applies. Then you add the fact that everything happens simultaneously and is a mystery. David used his independent free will to come back, God saw it in advance, AND God and David chose each other simultaneously. I suppose the word "mystery" really does apply here. :)
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.