Posted on 07/22/2007 7:40:38 PM PDT by xzins
Praise God!!!
Yes, I get the exact same impression. So far, I've been chalking it up to man wanting to always be in control. It seems the Holy Spirit would be the likeliest target for manipulation, since of the Three He is the least understood by most people.
All others pay cash.
In the absence of space, things cannot exist.
The Holy Spirit cannot BE manipulated.. lead or duped..
Any that seem to be trying should be marked mentally and watched/monitored..
For whom they are trying to control is YOU..
Okay, then what is your take on the "whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven?"
Preaching the Gospel is not binding or loosening. The binding (deo) is to tie, fasten, put under obligation and to loosen (luo) to un-tie, as in dissolving a matrimony...it's a very deliberate act, niot something like preaching.
Why "must" it be the priest who asks for forgiveness?
Because different people have been ordained different roles in the church, and binding and loosening is part of the apostolic clergy. Because God wants the Church to do His work on earth under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
So, if the priests in good faith and prayer forgives you, then it is forgiven in heaven as well. That is the promise we know from Mat 18:18.
You quoted: Jer 15:19 (a) : Therefore this is what the Lord says: "If you repent, I will restore you that you may serve me
Sounds like an "if-then" works-based salvation to me. Why are you quoting it? It also leaves the decision to repent to man. Oh, no! Does that mean we are in control? You may wish to retract this verse...
FK: The Bible says that those who do not believe go to hell. That is God's justice, and those people get what they want
FK, you keep using circular logic. Those who don't believe don't believe because God didn't give them the faith according to your (Reformed) theology. So, why, then, are they "condemned" for the lack of faith?
According to your theology, before foundation of the world, God decided He would make a multitude of people of which certain portion will be saved and the rest discarded and sentenced to eternal suffering. That's not the God of the Gospels.
All others pay cash
Those who have cash can show it. You can only talk about it.
Dr. E: You continue to misstate the reformed position, Kosta
Are you saying the Refromed theology does not say that we are born dead in sin and that we are destined to hell, unless born again of the Spirit?
Furthermore, is it not your theology that only those "justified" end up in heaven, or is there a chance that the "justified" also end up in hell?
That was weak..
What accounts, these? How do you conclude that because they didn't, that they couldn't? That isn't indicated anywhere. You are inventing their motives. Wasn't the real point of healings to stir faith in the lost? In all four of your examples, the afflicted one was already a mature follower of Christ. Perhaps they believed it would have been a misuse of power, I don't know. It just seems to me to be too coincidental by half that all of the supernatural powers that the men of the Church have claimed to receive by Apostolic succession just so happen to be all the unprovable ones. :)
Using your standards of "proof" then you should immediately dismiss +Paul as credible authority because he (and all the Apostles) eventually lost the power of miracles (assuming they had them to begin with).
No, I assume that they did have the powers and kept them. I don't know if there is any scripture to the contrary, but that they didn't in some cases use thier powers does not cut it as meaning that they couldn't. Remember, Paul counted his affliction as a true blessing. If He healed himself (or was healed by another Apostle) then it would have been to counter God, in his mind.
Obviously those who perform miracles must be the "true" people of God, right?
True Apostles, yes. They performed miracles, and then they died.
+Paul warns us (was it because his own healing powers were slipping?): "For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness"--2 Cor 11:13-15
Paul was exactly correct. Those who claim to have the powers of the Apostles are FALSE apostles, masquerading. :)
So, if you base your 'conversion' on who can heal and who can't, you are just as likely to believe Satan as you are God.
I couldn't base it on that because in today's times, no one, to my knowledge, can reliably heal.
Perhaps. Or perhaps they're not on cable or performing in tent shows.
I'm not precisely sure what you mean by "move". However, I do not think I change God's mind. God has already decided what is going to happen, and already knows on what and how many times I am going to pray about any given thing. That does not negate the value of prayer at all, though. Prayer is communication with God, and He says He wants that communication. Regardless of the outcome of the object of the prayer (e.g., my aunt Ethel lives or dies), I am always better off for having made the prayer.
Are your prayers answered?
Yes, the three general categories of responses are "yes", "no", or "wait". Of course, there are variations on each.
Are you now managing God, if that is the case?
I don't know what you mean here. It wouldn't occur to me to "manage" God in the normal sense.
The standard answer is that God gives to each what He knows they are capable of (the talents). The failure to realize the talents given is to our condemnation because we are to give to others what was freely given to us and because we must not love the world. We cannot serve two masters, and money is the source of all evil. That's why it will be harder for the rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle (which is a mistranslation, by the way). (emphasis added)
Then I'm afraid I do not understand the standard answer. I could follow the reasoning if you said that God gave in equal portions to everyone because God doesn't play favorites. However, it seems to me you are making a proportion argument, that God gives to everyone based on some sort of criteria, you said what "they are capable of". (What does that mean, BTW? :)
[This idea is bolstered by your final statement: "So, when God gives 'equally' to everyone, it is "equal" in the just way, affecting each equally, not quantity-wise."]
Anyway, this fails if we also say that rich men are less likely to go to Heaven because according to you, God would have compensated for their wealth-seeking propensities in order to be proportional with everyone else. Isn't that right? IOW, if the standard answer was correct, and God was truly proportional in distributing His grace to everyone based on what they could handle, THEN we should expect to see as many rich men in Heaven as from any other type of demographic.
Of course I'm assuming that your meaning is that those in the greater need can "handle" more grace. (?) Please correct me if I am wrong, but that would seem to be the only interpretation if everyone has a fair shot at getting into Heaven.
In order for the fine to be "just" the rich man needs to pay more. Otherwise the punishment is unequal and unequal punishment is unequal justice.
Not surprisingly, I agree with Seven that this isn't Biblical. The punishment for sin is the same for all. PLUS, you are arguing for a progressive criminal justice system. Is that REALLY what you would like to see??? :) Under your system, the transient who commits murder would get a much lighter sentence because his time and liberty would be considered "worth less" than the same time and liberty to an honest, hardworking taxpayer with a family. Is that your idea of justice?
You simply CANNOT means-test criminal law. The result would be that those with the least would be encouraged to commit the most crime because the penalties would be less. I don't think they need any more incentive. :) That is squarely against public policy and is partly why that is not our system now.
So would a lot of people but then it would be proof rather than faith.
Well, Christ certainly went all over the place, performing many miracles. Why? Wasn't it to offer "proof" that He was Who He said He was? To me, faith is obviously the only thing that matters, but it just seems to me that proof by signs is "one tool" that can be used to foster that inner growing faith. I think of Thomas. Here is the money verse:
John 20:29 : Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
This is clear to me that Jesus used physical proof to cause belief, IN THIS CASE, making it, at least legitimate.
And a valid theory is one that has facts to support it.
What you are talking about is not 'theory' but a paradigm, which organizes facts into a contextual system of thought.
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.