Posted on 12/04/2006 7:52:47 PM PST by Pyro7480
It's actually both, FK, taken in context, of course.
+Paul preaches sola fide because it is the very minimum required. The Protestant error is that it claims faith to be all that is required.
In the historical context, +Paul expected the end of times to come at any moment, and faith was a must in order for the coverts to be baptized. Under such urgency, works of faith simply had a secondary meaning to him.
The word was not legible or comprehensible or available to all but to a few for most of the Christian history. Your statement has no historical basis. Also, the very word of God does not tell us to read but to listen; God did not give us a book to read. God preached to His prophets and Apostles.
No, just with excessively lengthy diatribes.
Show me the oldest copies of the fragments showing the first page. Do some research. And, the 19th century is long gone. Perhaps you need to update your sources.
'We' know nothing of the kind
That head is still stuck in the sand. Denial is not a proof, FTD.
Once again, there is no legitimate reason to doubt any of the Old Testament books or their authors
Why? Because someone chooses to believe so against all evidence? Hey, if you wish to believe so, that's fine with me; just don't present your belifs as facts.
No, actually David's Jewish empire did span a very great area
Again, you need to update your readings.
It was axiomatic because of the authorship
The authorship of many biblical books is based on traditional belief and not on evidence. I hate to burst your bubble, but many of the books purportedly written by the same author demonstrate dissimilar writing style, vocabulary and other elements that betray them as having differet authors claiming to be one and the sam Apostle.
Nope. Different churches had different "canons".
The Founder of the religion is not alive in those religions
No one believes and worships and fears a 'dead' god. All religions in the world worship a deity that exists and is alive. Get real.
Moreover, Christianity is the only faith that claims its founder is God
Judaism and Islam do as well. So does the oldest written religion: Hinduism, by revelation at that.
And the Fundamentals may not be wrong as is the case when your Church accepts them in the various Creeds-such as the Trinity
So, you have issues with Trinity? I should have known. Well, then our discussion is over. I discuss thing only with Christians.
FK: "Well, in that case, you cannot believe there is even a such thing as the "elect". If any of the elect ultimately fall short, then the concept is destroyed."
Alex: "Not at all. If he falls short, he is not of the elect, even though he is called. If he is among the elect, he will do what St. Peter tells him, repent, grow in virtues, remain elect, and sin no more." (emphasis added)
You make my point for me. If it is up to a person to REMAIN elect, then the Biblical concept is moot. It is a sham. Just say that men elect themselves and be done with it. :) One of my favorite movies is "The Sting". You have God past-posting!!! And I'm not even kidding. :)
FK: "The flesh counts for nothing."
This is not interpretation, this is mistranslation, designed to tell you lies about the gospel.
You're right, this is not interpretation. These are actual words from John 6. What is the mistranslation?
A true leader leads free men who know what they are doing as they follow. What you see is a slave runner.
Amen! Yes, God is a runner of slaves to righteousness. For example:
1 Cor 7:21-23 : 21 Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you although if you can gain your freedom, do so. 22 For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ's slave . 23 You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men.
It does not appear that Christ is respecting men here. What about this:
Rom 6:17-18 : 17 But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. 18 You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.
Paul readily says that he is putting this in "human terms". That's the way we use it here.
(Ecclesiasticus 15) .....
Thanks for posting from the Deuts. :) From the flow of the passage, this certainly seems like a works-based salvation model. I.e. "16 If thou wilt keep the commandments and perform acceptable fidelity for ever, ..." How do you analyze them, as against the OT or the NT? I ask because we have been dealing with the NT.
The Church certainly did try their best, didn't they? Fortunately, along came the Protestant revolution which put the scriptures in the hands of the people.
Amen, Harley. The Holy Spirit will not be denied.
Welcome back! 8~)
As I have or should have said to you before, I think the whole matter is unthinkable. We have Jeremiah saying that God does not willingly afflict the children of men -- with the suggestion that God does stuff unwillingly. We have 1 Tim 2:3-4 and the apparent problem of God's desire being frustrated. To me that's a poser.
How can we give the sovereignty of God its proper place in any account without ending up sounding a lot like Muslims - "(shrug) It is written, inscrutable but written: some are damned, some are saved, what can you do but what it is written that you shall do, what can you suffer but what it is written you shall suffer ....)
Clearly we have different ethical concepts from those of Islam, and we think that Jesus is the perfect and efficacious revelation of God, while they think the Mohammed provided the perfect revelation, while being himself one heck of a guy, but not divine. But they seem to despise freedom, while in every other FR forum but the religious one Freedom is a value.
I'm serious here. Is this at all suggestive of anything that might be important or should I just go back to sleep?
Not really. You are spreading a myth which has no historical or factual backing. It was Gutenberg's invention of the printing press that made it possible to make numerous copies of books without having to make them by manually copying them.
And even when that was made possible, how many people did the Protestants make literate? You may be surprised that the illiteracy rates in Protestant societies were no different than elsewhere and that it was not until well into the second half of the 20th century that (rudimentary) literacy became the norm.
In Protestant England, for example, as late as 1841, up to 33% of men and 44% of women were illiterate (they had to "sign" with a "mark"). This is 300 years after the Protestant Reformation.
As is, even the majority of those those who are considered "literate" only have ground-level literacy skills (newspapers, etc.), and as many as one third of the people in America have difficulty reading period.
How are then people going to "understand" the word of God? Never mind the fact that they have no cultural historical background to fall back on in order to more fully comprehend what is read either.
In fact, it seems we are reversing the trend, as the literacy rates appear to be declining.
There is a significant difference between being able to pronounce letters into words and cognitive and analytical literacy, or just being able to sing his or her name (i.e. knowing what one is actually reading).
The National center for education Statistics reports that among college graduates literacy actually declined between 1992 and 2003,and that less then 1/3 of college graduates were at the highest proficiency level (2003), including less than half of those with advanced degrees!
sing=sign
Only if you cling on to +Paul, as interpreted by Protestants. Truly, you need to move on and diversify your biblical references.
"If it is hard for the righteous to be saved, what will become of the ungodly and the sinner?" (1 Pet 4:18)
Well, I’m only here tentatively. My computer is still broken. :O(
Let me tell you my computer store, which was suppose to have fix it by now, has felt the wrath of Harley!!!
It is a historical fact that Protestants labored to get Bibles into the hands of their people, Catholics and Orthodox did not. I know we've discussed this a while back, perhaps on a different thread. I believe the first Orthodox bible is due for release very soon. Well, at least they have the New Testament and Psalms available.
Any day now, after 2100 years, the Orthodox are about to catch up with the rest of us. Of course see how you don't believe in much of the Old Testament, Paul's writings, or Peter's writings one has to wonder what's the point?
No huge disagreements with that post.
I don’t consider the differences amongst the Trinitarians to be sufficient to expect such will keep them out of Heaven.
Thx.
True enough.
HOWEVER, you seem to be ignoring GOD’S RESPONSES to the ways various people worshipped Him.
I prefer to observe God’s words and responses
and to
LEARN
from them.
BTW, somewhere in the last month . . . had it open but had to reboot and lost it . . . I don’t know if it was you, an RC or one of the Hyper-Calvinists.
someone asserted that Pentecostals did not have good scholarship or had a poor reputation in terms of scholarship.
Reputation and reality are quite different sometimes.
Given that this is somewhat in the middle of my dissertatioin, I can assert emphatically that such a public notion, set of opinions are WHOLESALE FALSE.
Pentecostal scholarship stands up to the best. This is true at ORU and Robertson’s University as well as others on a case after case basis.
The whole idea is basically unfounded brazen bias and ill-informed opinion.
I think you might like at least parts of today’s contribution to the
ONE ANOTHER DEVOTIONAL
at post #192
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/1811920/posts?page=184
It does not appear that Christ is respecting men here.
AMEN!
"For there is no respect of persons with God." -- Romans 2:11
And we see Peter agreeing with Paul...
But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him." Acts 10:34-35 "Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
The question then becomes who is able to be righteous and thus judged well according to the fruits of his life? And the answer is all and only those in whom the Holy Spirit dwells, according to the will and purpose of God who determined the names of His children from before the foundation of the world...
"For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure." -- Philippians 2:13
As you've noted, we are either servants to sin or servants to righteousness. There's no middle ground. How do we become servants of righteousness? Paul explains...
But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness." -- Romans 6:16-18"Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
We're able to act righteously and "obey from the heart" because God gives His children a "new heart" with which to understand and believe.
"A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh." -- Ezekiel 36:26
With this new heart we are able to comprehend the reason for our salvation -- Jesus Christ upon the cross. We then become "servants of righteousness" not by our own efforts, but by Jesus Christ's redemptive sacrifice. His righteousness becomes our own and we are acquitted of our sins. "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." -- 2 Corinthians 5:21
It's all Jesus Christ, all the time, everywhere for everything, whether the world recognizes this fact or not.
And he is before all things, and by him all things consist." -- Colossians 1:16-17"For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
‘the rest of us’ being english speakers who’ve spent 400 years destroying the meaning of scripture to suit their favorite sins.
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.