Hey chief; would you believe...
Posted on 07/22/2007 7:40:38 PM PDT by xzins
I believe it was only after Vatican II that RC's were encouraged to have Bible studies without a Priest present. In the end, the more they study Scripture the greater the harvest of the LORD.
Amen.
Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief. However, for this reason I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, as a pattern to those who are going to believe in Him for everlasting life. 1 Timothy 1:15-16.
God wants to reveal Himself and He chooses the method.
Then what happens when an infant is baptized? I thought that was when the sacrifice was applied, i.e. before there is belief or will. I remember there being some kind of a proxy thing, but am not sure if you are talking about that above.
FK: "But ALL of you [Catholic/Orthodox] say that future sins are NOT covered by Christ's work."
They are, but we must repent of those sins in order for them to be forgiven. That's why we have the sacrament of confession.
OK, so it looks like you are saying that Christ's "effect" on sin is the same throughout. It allows us to ask for forgiveness for sins, and as infants this happens by proxy?
If you believe your sins are forgiven without repenting of them, then repentance becomes an "empty ritual," which may explain why the Protestants may not have such "guilty conscience", but rather consider themselves righteous in their justification that no amount of wrongdoing can affect.
Actually, none of this is correct. :) True repentance is required in order to become a child of God. We disagree on which sins that repentance applies to. You say it is ridiculous to be able to repent of future sins and we say it is ridiculous to repent and believe by proxy. :) And, we still know that God commands confession and repentance even after salvation. It is part of required perseverance, so it is not an "empty ritual".
Second, a guilty conscience does not come from one's view on the salvific nature of repentance. It comes from the indwelling Holy Spirit. The Spirit moves all believers to want to come back to Him, and giving a guilty conscience is one motivational tool.
Third, and I admit this may be splitting hairs with what you said, but just to be clear, we do not consider ourselves righteous in our justification. We consider that we are justified because of CHRIST'S righteousness, not our own. Therefore, we are "declared" righteous, but through no merit of our own.
Your belief is incorrect.
My parents had a beautiful Volkswagen-sized table family Bible that we all read without a priest present. I only remember a priest coming to our house once - to bless the house.
It is definitely profitable to study Scripture.
Acts 9:17
And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.
9:18 And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.
9:19 And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus.
Paul apparently spent many years "receiving meat". He himself says 3 years in Galatians 1, and some scholars say 13.
He had to work studying the gospel after receiving the Holy Spirit, just like the rest of us. It's a revelation from Christ first and foremost, but then we must do our part.
And as you may guess, this view of God reinforces my comparison of Stockholm Syndrome:
God selects one over the other is simply to display His righteousness.... God uses particular people to show His power in the world...God chose us because we were foolish things in this world.
But you're not less foolish than your brother whom God hates. But you were picked, not him - so God could display His power. To me it harkens back to the view of the capricious gods of long long ago.
In this theory, I can see survivor's guilt occurring, but love of the tyrant, no... I'm not saying it can't and doesn't occur, but that the theology works against it.
And I find this particularly contradictory in Calvinism:
This is not to minimize the fact of God's love for His children.
Some of His children. Others? No. For reasons that we know not.
This partiality, seemingly random to us, is, I see now, critical to TULIP's predestination theology and ties in again with the errors about God's immutability.
thanks again for your reply.
Hey chief; would you believe...
Act 16:14-15 And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard [us]: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul. And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought [us], saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide [there]. And she constrained us.
I wouldn't try to make too much out of the Holy Spirit timeline in Acts. You will find it rather confusing as this was the beginning of the church. Rather I think it is reasonable to assume that if you have faith to be baptized, then you must have faith before being baptized.
Yes, and we see from Acts 9, my scripture above, that Paul received the Holy Spirit and then he was baptised
LOL, Maxwell Smart with one of the first cell phones.
God does not hate men. Men hate God. God reeks vengences on those who hate Him simply because God is pure and people hate pure things.
That is a very distinct difference.
God does not hate men. Men hate God. God reeks vengences on those who hate Him simply because God is pure and people hate pure things.
But some He picks to make not hate Him and not reek vengence on.
Would that be correct in your view?
I don't know what consists of "general commentary". I just read the words. In the OT there is also this:
Ezek 28:11-19 : 11 The word of the Lord came to me: 12 "Son of man, take up a lament concerning the king of Tyre and say to him: 'This is what the Sovereign Lord says: "'You were the model of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. 13 You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone adorned you: ruby, topaz and emerald, chrysolite, onyx and jasper, sapphire, turquoise and beryl. Your settings and mountings were made of gold; on the day you were created they were prepared. 14 You were anointed as a guardian cherub, for so I ordained you. You were on the holy mount of God; you walked among the fiery stones. 15 You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created till wickedness was found in you. 16 Through your widespread trade you were filled with violence, and you sinned. So I drove you in disgrace from the mount of God, and I expelled you, O guardian cherub, from among the fiery stones. 17 Your heart became proud on account of your beauty, and you corrupted your wisdom because of your splendor. So I threw you to the earth; I made a spectacle of you before kings. 18 By your many sins and dishonest trade you have desecrated your sanctuaries. So I made a fire come out from you, and it consumed you, and I reduced you to ashes on the ground in the sight of all who were watching. 19 All the nations who knew you are appalled at you; you have come to a horrible end and will be no more.'"
Again, just reading the words, it seems pretty clear that a mere man is not being referenced. There are plenty of commentators who would agree with me. There is also:
Isa 14:12-15 : 12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! 13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: 14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. 15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. KJV
I suppose we could argue over whether satan is the King of Babylon. There is much literature on both sides. I am pointing out that evidence is there and was available to the righteous to recognize satan as evil. I am still a little confused though as to what would "possess" :) you to sort of stick up for satan and portray him as a loyal servant of God. Why would it make you more comfortable if satan really isn't such a bad guy? It would hurt my Christianity because then I would not think that I am under constant attack by an evil enemy. If that was true, then I would be less motivated to clothe myself in Christ and put on His full armor, etc.
first, they (the elect) were freely chosen by God's goodness (Romans 11:5-7, 28)
On that we agree.
secondly, they must show in their conduct that they are choice men (Ephesians 4:17).
Now that's funny because nowhere in Scripture does it say men MUST show they are "choice men." Instead, over and over Scripture says God does the choosing and thus, the elect WILL act righteously by the operation of the Holy Spirit within them, according to God's will for them.
Let's see what your example of Ephesians 4:17 actually says...
"This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind," -- Eph. 4:17
Sounds like Paul is explaining what comes next in the elect's sanctification -- they will walk as a "new man" which "after God is created in righteousness and true holiness" while their "minds are renewed in the spirit" (Eph. 4:23-24).
Paul further underscores God's will by introducing himself in the first verse of Ephesians 4 as...
"I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called"
So while Paul and all the writers of Scripture encourage the faithful to labor in love and persevere in patience and hope, we understand that all who do so are "prisoners of the Lord," who by His will walk according to His grace.
"For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure." -- Philippians 2:13
Answered in James 2, those whom God has through faith in Christ, made heirs to the kingdom, therefore Christians, aka spiritual Israel
Either men work by their own abilities and desires to please God, and in so doing, accumulate God's good will through their own good works...
Or God changes the sinner's heart from stone to flesh and wipes the scales from his eyes to give him new sight and opens his dull ears to the truth, all according to His will for His creation, exactly as He purposed it to be from before the foundation of the world.
Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed." -- Isaiah 6:9-10"And he (the Lord) said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not.
Monergism vs. synergism. Scripture comes down on the side of monergism -- to God belongs ALL the credit, ALL the glory because He has "declared the end from the beginning."
"Yea, before the day was I am he; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand: I will work, and who shall let it?" -- Isaiah 43:13
Even though men will fuss and fume that they are the captains of their own ships and in control of their own lives, the Bible tells us otherwise. And to rest confidently in that fact is a gift of grace in itself.
We evangelize, yes, but that is a gift to us from God. We can't save anyone. All whom God wills to be saved, will be saved.
John 15:16, "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you"
Only the elect will be saved and gathered for glory on the Day of Judgment. Mark 13:27
And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven.
Are you sure? I do not recall any Catholic or Orthodox saying that. You are confusing "Jesus paying for all of our sins" and "Jesus actions applied to the individual". Jesus died for all sins, past, present and future of ALL men!
That could be. My mindset was in the context of losing one's salvation. If that is possible, then Christ's death did not pay to cover the sin that caused that, i.e. at that moment the person is headed to hell so the debt is not paid. A debt is either paid in full, or it is not. Based on that, I said what I said. I have long been of the mind that Apostolics believed that Christ's death only applied to original sin, and that every subsequent serious sin had to be separately handled through absolution. However, since this is the second (or third, depending on Kolo's answer to my response to him) recent post challenging that supposition, I am happy to recalibrate my understanding. :)
IF Christ's work takes away all sins without man's repentance, then why does Jesus intercede TODAY for us?
We say that repentance is required also, but we do not see it as being piecemeal. Christ died once and for all for all of our sins, including future sins. Likewise, we repent once and for all of all of our sins, including future sins.
AMEN!!!
So you would agree with these conclusions:
- Men hate God. God reeks vengences on those who hate Him simply because God is pure and people hate pure things.
- But some He picks to make not hate Him and not reek vengence on.
- There is no criteria, we can know beforehand, to determine whether He picks us or not.
Agreed?
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.