Posted on 07/22/2007 7:40:38 PM PDT by xzins
Have you ever read Machiavelli?
AMEN! What a profound and comforting truth. Fear has no hold over those who are His.
"Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?" -- Romans 8:35
That's a works-based salvation which Scripture denies as the basis for our salvation.
"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love" -- Ephesians 1:4
Chosen not because we are holy and without blame; but chosen in order that we be made holy and without blame by His grace through faith in Jesus Christ.
It's the Biblical distinction upon which the Reformation was waged. God's strength and purpose, not man's; Christ's justification and not our own.
Who? Whitefield? We like Whitefield....
(It's a letter all of us recalcitrant Calvinists would write to you.) 8~)
It’s so amazing and so consistent and so accurate that there are thousands upon thousands of different interpretations with more being generated every day.
God commands prayer, even on things that are already lead pipe cinches. The Lord's Prayer is full of these. For example, we are to pray that God will not lead us into temptation, yet scripture SPECIFICALLY tells us that God does not tempt. Is therefore that part of the Lord's Prayer a waste? Of course not. Same thing here.
If Paul hopes for his own salvation, it must mean that he wasn’t sure of it. Rom 8:24-25
LOL! No. Paul is distinguishing between salvation at point of belief and salvation at entry into Heaven. The completion of salvation is what he is speaking of here. It has nothing to do with certainty, it has to do with time. Just 10 verses earlier he says:
Rom 8:15-16 : 15 For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, "Abba, Father." 16 The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children.
Past tense. Done deal. In fact, I'm sure you know that my side uses Paul as a primary source for salvational assurance. It is everywhere in his writings. I presume it is one of the big reasons why some Apostolics around here do not like Paul and think that his theology is wrong. :) Do you remember all the "high-five" posts that you and Kosta (and others) have traded on this thread? I mean the ones in which you called us "Paulines" and said that we disagree with the Gospels because we think that Paul's teachings are sound? I read them all.
He definitely wasn’t sure about his own salvation in Phil. 3:11-14
That's not correct. Paul was encouraging us to not become slackers during the race we run during life. He was saying that he hadn't reached the final salvation yet, because he was still alive and God had more for him to do. Perseverance was important to Paul and we agree with him. But Paul never taught a (comparatively) works-based salvation model. Paul infamously taught that salvation was by grace through faith alone (Eph. 2:8-9, et. al). And, he taught assurance in many places, such as:
2 Tim 4:6-8 : 6 For I am already being poured out like a drink offering, and the time has come for my departure. 7 I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race , I have kept the faith. 8 Now there is in store for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day — and not only to me, but also to all who have longed for his appearing.
Paul was absolutely certain of his salvation, as fellow Reformers are today. :) Paul also said this:
2 Tim 1:12 : That is why I am suffering as I am. Yet I am not ashamed, because I know whom I have believed, and am convinced that he is able to guard what I have entrusted to him for that day.
Paul doesn't "wish", he is convinced. He KNOWS.
One might even say zillions, but those who'd claim it really should know better.
Do pacifists run away? I thought that they just turned the other cheek. :)
I try not to think of us as Machiavellian. We are just one big happy Catholic family encouraging all of our prodigal Protestant brethren to give up the spiritual partying and c’mon back home. :)
Apparently some of us believe that God has abandoned a portion of humanity forever.
Us all, or us only?
Once again you use Pauline verses over Christ’s. Christ is inclusivist, with only those refusing Him going to Hell. Paul is exclusivist, with only those picked out of the jar going to Heaven.
We are indeed far apart, the Christians and the Paulines.
Your Care Bear God ministers only to the elect and chauffeurs them to Heaven. The wrath that you point to doesn’t appear to apply to them.
Paul’s eyes were blinded by God, not opened, on the road to Damascus. Our eyes are opened by the infusion of the Holy Spirit at our baptism in which our parents, or ourselves if we have reached the age of reason, invite the Holy Spirit in.
Pauline exclusivism versus Christian inclusivism.
That is not what we are saying.
We think so highly of Paul that he is considered the second greatest apostle after Peter. The Church that I grew up in and attended school in was called Sts. Peter and Paul. We have no issue with Paul; to the contrary we regard him very very highly.
We think that Calvinism is a dark and evil misinterpretation of Paul, just as we think that the Gnostics have a dark and evil misinterpretation of all of Scripture. We don’t think the worse of Scripture just because the Gnostics misinterpret it; we don’t think any worse of Paul because the Reformed misinterpret him either.
Since every Protestant is apparently gifted with a God given right to be his own Pope, theoretically, there is a different denomination with every single Protestant.
Churches of one, you might say.
Looking through Reformed glasses, one sees that one’s prayers are entirely mechanical exercises because nothing anyone does is of consequence, yet one does them because one ought to.
There are no consequences for not praying so why ought one to pray? Because we ought to.
Okay. Salvation now versus final salvation. You guys get better and better. :)
I’ll bite. What is salvation now and what is salvation then? How do they differ? They must differ because you point them out separately.
c’mon now, doc. I know you hang your head when you think of George, and you say to yourself, “how in the world did he get mixed up with john wesley!!??”
so....i’ve decided to take him as my patron.
I’m a calvinist in the tradition of wesley-arminian whitefield.
Does this mean that you consider yourself a Red-Letter Catholic?
And there is Liberia, where drug-fueled gangs of machete-wielding adolescents terrorize shanty towns and changes of government are marked by the ceremonial feeding of the outgoing President’s ears to himself and of his genitalia to the incoming President (on the grounds that the former leader’s powers are contained therein. Which would certainly add a bit of culinary variety to the New Hampshire primary’s rubber-chicken circuit)."
This has absolutely nothing to do with what we're discussing. :>)
For some really 1st rate enjoyable reading, go here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1900211/posts
While I understand what you are trying to say, let's keep in mind a certain truth: actions speak louder than words. Normal people don't hold "very lively discussions" over topics that don't make any difference. Someone in the congregation obviously thinks it does and they're trying to tell you about it.
These are more subtle points of view that have little to do with justification, sanctification, atonement, election, predestination, and all the other far more important things.
While I'm not clear as to what all the other far more important things might be, I'll take your point. Nevertheless, the subject of eschatology is getting hotter by the minute and, as I opined before, it's only a matter of time before it comes to a head and causes a schism.
I am very set in my ways on baptism but I can assure you, if a Reformed Presbyterian church opened up across the street from me, I would think nothing of leaving my Southern Baptist church.
You have that luxury. You've already been baptized by immersion (or so I assume). However, if you start hanging your hat with the RP and, subsequently, you evangelize someone, what will you advise them to do? Get sprinkled? Also, the RP baptize infants, which is to say, they hold it up and show it some water. Are you ok with that?
Applause.
You do make some very fine points in the debate.
It is true that we consider the specific Word of God to be of the greatest value in a work of unequalled value elsewhere in the world. The NT is then measured against the understanding of the Word of God and where there is apparent conflict, the NT is studied until it is understood. The OT is then studied in the same fashion against the entire NT.
We do believe that the Word of God is the Word of God, whether NT or OT. The caution is that the OT earlier chapters were passed down through so many generations, that one must really study them to understand them
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.