Posted on 12/04/2006 7:52:47 PM PST by Pyro7480
Definitely God has the power to kill and death is a part of the Creation after the Fall. In Luke 12 Christ explains that God is to be feared and that Christ will testify for them who confess in Him. The context is of judgement after death, not on death itself.
We were talking about infants who die innocently. It is possible, of course, to say that God takes them or even kills them, so long as it is understood that God does not desire their death any more than he desired the Fall.
If it worked that way, isn't it curious that they are never quoted in the NT? I have no problem with the Apostles knowing the Septuagint, and I don't think a quote in the NT is necessary to validate an OT work. I just have a hard time believing that the NT presentation of satan is BASED on the deuterocanonicals. Inspiration means that the ultimate basis of the writings was God Himself, rather than other works.
Who killed Ananias and Sapphira?
Ah, then we see the concept of "God's children" very differently. In the above, I would say that the one child God feeds IS His child, but the other 4 are not His children. Out of the five, God loves the one child who is truly His. (The other children are not His responsibility.) In fact, He loves her so much that He will allow nothing to prevent her salvation, not even her own wickedness. That is true love. If she really was His child, and He allowed her to make foolish decisions to her doom, then that would mean to me that He really did not love her. God accepts the "responsibility" of Fatherhood for those who actually are His children, not everybody.
John 1:12-13 : 12 Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God — 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.
This would imply that God can be 'bought.' If that's how the Protestants understand God's integrity, it would be the ultimate in anthropomorphism.
It's not a gift one gets for a birthday or at graduation. It has no chance of being corrupt by the Giver. It is priceless (nothing in the world can buy it, earn it, deserve it). There is no need whatsoever to call it free, or a gift. In fact, it's just plain wrong and misleading.
Umberto, I think.
"Ah, then we see the concept of "God's children" very differently."
Sadly, it appears we do. It seems we don't simply worship differently from you, we worship a different God.
"It is priceless (nothing in the world can buy it, earn it, deserve it)."
What then is this "grace"? Is it the salvation wrought by the finished work of Christ on the cross?
Wow!!! Someone better get the word to Adam-FAST.
That sounds very Gnostic. Knowing good and striving to do it.
I think we might agree that not all sin all the time. My question doesn't require partiality, just whether someone other than a saved Christian could choose to do a single good thing.
Sin isn't a state that one is in and out of. It is a condition. As long as you're in that condition, you cannot please God.
Is it your view that a non-saved Christian is incapable of make a single good choice?
Our Lord Jesus made the observation to some Jews:
Clearly non-saved Christians can do good things. However, note their condition that our Lord stated. They were still viewed by God as being "evil". Unless they come to Christ, they can never please God.
Of course. The Church ministers to the Gentiles also. You did not know that?
= = =
I assume you knew about gentiles being outside the RC edifice--and still born again authentic Believers--part of CHRIST'S CHURCH UNIVERSAL?
Double predestination is simply the logical conclusion of single predestination, which is patently scriptural. In reality, if you don't believe in double, then you don't believe in single. To reduce God to a stenographer simply writing down the names of those who will accept Him makes a mockery of the concept of predestination. Either God determines what He wants in His sovereignty, or He is a follower of men.
God doesn't need to create anything that is good for nothingness. Instead, He created some creatures with volition. Creatures with volition have volitional responsibility. When we choose to rebel from Him, we are accountable for that rebellion.
Yes, men are always accountable for their rebellion. However, God creates no one for nothingness. All the lost whom God creates are needed to further God's plan. Look at Judas. It's just a fact that God creates most, knowing full well that they will not enter Heaven. If they served no purpose, then presumably God wouldn't bother to create them.
In God's magnificent grace and love, He brilliantly chose to condemn all of mankind before we are saved. Now by believing in Him through faith in Christ, we have salvation from condemnation. This is discernibly distinct while exercising the mind of Christ, from supporting the doctrine of double predestination or thinking God has predestined particular human to the Lake of Fire.
I agree with the first two sentences, and they are perfectly consistent with double predestination. How are they discernibly distinct? The faith in Christ that leads to salvation comes solely from God. God predestines to whom He will give this faith. The alternative is that man generates his own faith, and I doubt you believe that. :)
The Lake of Fire was created with respect to the fallen angels and Satan, but is is also a place for things which are PONEROS(evil which is good for nothingness).
Lost people are good for nothingness after they physically die. However, when on earth, God uses them for His purposes.
Predestination is Scriptural, although double predestination was an invention of Beza's mind out of fellowship with Him.
I don't think you get to call in sick up there.
How are "Mother of Christ" or "Mother of the second person of the Trinity" not accurate descriptions of who Christ is? When you use "Mother of God" you MUST explain that it does not include the Father and the Spirit. With "Mother of Christ" one MUST explain that Christ is God, etc. What is so special about "Mother of God" as opposed to other descriptions?
As you may know, "Christ" means anointed, or Messiah, not God. Thus, "mother of Christ" doesn't assign Jesus the proper position that He is - God. I do not recall in the Old Testament that makes the connection obvious that the Messiah would be God Himself. Thus, the early Christians would want to make it clear that Jesus was God - and they did so, among other means, by naming Mary the Mother of God.
As to "mother of the Second Person of the Trinity", that is a bit unwieldy, don't you think?
Finally, why on earth are you making such a big deal out of this? Do you enjoy arguing with others?
Regards
Apparently, Luther DID try to remove what you call the NT Deuterocannonicals, and he was wrong. Thankfully, his own followers wouldn't let him (admittedly according to Wiki). This is another example of the Spirit working through the laity rather than the hierarchs (Luther being a de facto hierarch). So, on this point Luther (one man) was wrong and was overruled by the laity. That's how I think God works.
It is God's justice, His uncreated energy which He uses to accomplish our salvation; an invisible hand that guides us and gently brings us back on track; not a commodity you take home with you.
You are correct, of course, generally speaking: we have scriptural examples of God literally killing sinners. We do not have a New Testament scripture for God expressing a desire to kill (Old Testament is less clear on that), nor is natural death ever described as God killing. I made the comment when talking about children dying. See my 9881.
Huh? Elaborate please.
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.