Posted on 07/22/2007 7:40:38 PM PDT by xzins
Well, you have a point here. Maybe it's because it's difficult to see any progress with atheists, while there can and has been maturation among Christians to better understand God's will and His word. I know I have grown a lot in my understanding thanks to these discussions.
Hopefully, these threads on the RF, by strengthening our own faith, equip us better to engage with non-believers in the real world.
The spirit of anti-Christ is running amok in today's society as we can see from the myriad articles posted on the News Forum – and yet the most faithful tend to congregate and exhort and/or encourage one another.
As a Postmil, I believe it is incumbent on all believers to preach loudly and to all men.
But those atheist guys scare me. 8~)
"For the time is at hand."
Very true, but when has it not been?
Well when the Logos is redefined as the virgin Mary, you got a fundamental error
As faithful as they may have been how do you know if they were good students and got it right?
These words begin this thread. Protestant churches consider Christ the firstborn of all creatures. The Protestant churches are those named in Hebrews 12:23
To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,
If you claim another taking precedence before Christ, you have another church. The leaders of a church that worships someone besides Christ can make all the claims they want to, their claims mean nothing to those who do worship Jesus Christ. They may draw all the circles they want and call those without heretics and sinners, but having no authority under heaven, they are, as God says, dry clouds without water, worthless.
Very true. Arminius was a student of Calvin, and look where he took it. 8~)
Such language is strange to me, because my definition of "saved" refers to final salvation in heaven. I have already given you 2 Peter 2 and his take on it being better to never have been 'saved' in the first place if it means learning about Christ and subsequently falling away. Jesus tells a similar story regarding the one demon cast out, and then returning with seven more demons...
Your idea of 'being saved' is not the same as final salvation. As such, your definition doesn't make sense to me.
Scripture tells us it's the Holy Spirit who renews our mind. If the Holy Spirit renews a man's mind, then does the Holy Spirit renew some men's minds more than other men's minds? Again, I have already offered you Scriptures that can be understood that the Spirit can and does "gift" some more than others. For example, the parable of the talents, you will note that some have received more. God gives ALL of us particular and unequal shares of Himself. All of them separately are sufficient for us. God does not "short-change" ANYONE so that they cannot later say "God, you didn't give me enough graces". As you have already admitted, God gives ALL men sufficient graces. They become "effective" as a result of the fruit that results. How much the "soil" matters in the production of this fruit is beyond me. But it is certainly Scriptural to expect men to respond to God - and those who do not are in trouble of facing eternity without God.
Regards
Dr. E: You don't have to take Alamo-Girl's word for it. Einstein said it. Parallel lines will eventually intersect because the universe is curved....Two lines moving in the same direction on a plane will never meet at a finite set of coordinates. However, suppose that two people start at the Equator and head north. They are traveling in the same direction, but since they are on a sphere, they do meet!
You guys are killing me with your definitions and unfortunately misleading occasional lurkers.
First, two parallel lines moving in the same direction along the equator or any point in the east-west direction will remain parallel and will never meet even though they move on a curved surface.
Moving in the north-south direction, two parallel lines also always parallel unless you introduce convergence at a specific point (i.e. a pole).
Einstein's theory is presuming that the lines are converging towards a pole (which is not a absolute condition, for one can slice a sphere into parallel slices; convergence exists only if there is a presumption of a meeting point—a pole. Once you have a single point of convergence the lines are no longer parallel, by definition: parallel means equidistant, and equidistant is mutually exclusive with respect to convergent. Once you introduce convergence, the lines are no longer parallel (their point of convergence can be assessed theoretically as a tangent of the angle of convergence if the separaton at the starting point is known).
Alamo-Girl and you are introducing a special case where lines are converging towards a pole, by introducing curvature and polarity into space. Neither of these conditions is necessarily true of absolute. But under your conditions the lines are converging and not parallel (i.e. equidistant over distance). They can be equidistant only at a given point.
What Alamo-Girl didn't tell us is that Einstien basically said that parallel lines were only a relative observer's phenomenon and that, in space, there are no true parallel lines; only convergent ones. In other words, Einstein postulated that parallel is a mathematical (ideal) condition that doesn't exist , except in Eucledian geometry. He postulated that the reality is not "flat" but curved and polar (i.e. that there is a common center to the universe towards all object will eventually fall).
Most recent cosmological evidence suggests that Einstein was wrong (in fact, all cosmological theories are wrong—because they are all man-made working models). The universe is actually expanding and not contracting or even slowing down. So, chances are that the universe is not polar (i.e. without a gravitational "center"), and therefore all lines defining the space are not necessarily convergent.
Any serious reading of Scripture debunks the "theory of Apostolic Succession".
1. Mathias disappears from Scripture after being picked to replace Judas Iscariot.
2. Paul is hand picked by Jesus.
3. The apostles thought of themselves as elders and missionaries. They did not place themselves above all others.
4. Early on Christian churches picked their leaders from their elders, who exhibited the gifts of the Holy Spirit and lived lives that conformed to Scripture.
5. The church leaders that followed the Apostles were not granted supernatural powers.
6. The historic lineage of this claimed "Apostolic Succession" has gaps and has periods where more than one claimed the authority of the same office.
7. Those claiming the highest office of this claimed "Apostolic Succession" have committed some of the worst persecutions of Christians in history.
As long as the RCC has been separated from the power of the State I rejoice when they make these claims. Let everyone know who you are and what you believe. I will be happy to stand with those from the RCC that are saved and worship GOD the FATHER, GOD the SON and the HOLY SPIRIT in heaven. The more their beliefs are made public the greater the opportunity to present their Scriptural error.
Great point. Error can be found anywhere. It is very clear the Bereans had it right. Everything has to be looked at through Scripture.
It can be argued that the more Christians stray from what could be seen as the most important truth found in Scripture -- that Jesus Christ's justification of His flock was and is total, complete and unmerited, and made known to us by God's grace through faith according to the work of the Holy Spirit -- the more atheists are emboldened.
If Christians are undecided about how and even if they have been saved, then we become easy pickings for every foul wind that blows.
And in nothing terrified by your adversaries: which is to them an evident token of perdition, but to you of salvation, and that of God." -- Philippians 1:27-28"Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ: that whether I come and see you, or else be absent, I may hear of your affairs, that ye stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel;
Who wrongly thinks our confidence is "presumption?"
"Stand fast." Isn't that a great phrase? And how does Paul say we are to "stand fast?" By speaking the Gospel of Christ."
"Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong." -- 1 Corinthians 16:13
And this verse led me to the rest of 1 Corinthians which concludes with the only "anathema" that means anything in this life...
"If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha." -- 1 Corinthians 16:22
Be sure to hold their feet to the fire and know just who they claim the Holy Trinity is. If Jesus does not have the pre-eminence in all things, and Mary is the first-born of all creatures as one of the popes asserted, speaking infallibly to the whole church, then they are not of the church of Jesus Christ. You would be unequally yoked with such, and have nothing in common.
I think logically. The term "parallel lines" has a definition. If this definition is violated, it no longer IS a parallel line that we are discussing, but something else. If you have a triangle, and add another side to it, does it remain a triangle? Such speculations is nonsense to my mind. Parallel lines that intersect are not parallel lines anymore.
And at WHICH point would these "parallel lines" intersect at? If you distinguish between two points in infinity, you have destroyed the definition of eternity! As you note elsewhere, and perhaps do not realize it, the “Line at Infinity” is the straight line on which all “Points at Infinity” lie. I agree, and have said as such. ALL points on an infinite line are the same. Thus, if you distinguish between two points, say one that intersection occurs and one point where intersection does NOT occur at, you have distinguished and ruined your definition.
I wrote: My point is that God is not subject to time. Thus, the idea that "eternity is time without end" is an incorrect definition.
You replied: The second statement does not follow from the first. Of course God is not subject to time or space. He created them! His Name is I AM. That is why I aver that “timeless” is a better adjective than “eternal” when speaking of God the Creator of “all that there is” whether spiritual or physical - including time!
You seem to contradict yourself. First, you say that eternity is "time without end", which I say is incorrect, then you talk about "timeless as being a better adjective. Are you still in the midst of thinking out loud and trying to determine your point of view?
"Timelessness" means no time. Not "time without end". "Eternity" does NOT have a beginning. "Time without end" DOES! Thus, you are incorrect, as I have said before. Eternity and time without end are not the same thing.
Infinity is an unbounded quantity greater than every real number
I disagree. Infinity has no "quantity" because there is no distinction. Minimum and maximum are IDENTICAL! There is absolutely NO distinction in infinity. You have already admitted as such when you say "all points on an infinite line are the same". Infinity is not "one plus the last number"!
Eternity is not “no time” or “timelessness” it is “time without end” – or as the Epistle of Barnabas put it, a time of not counting.
I have already addressed this error. "time without end" is only projected in one direction. Eternity is without end in EITHER direction. Thus, there is no future or past in eternity. In "time without end", we realize that time has a starting point, but without end. That is TWO DIFFERENT things, A-G. I suggest you read Nicholas of Cusa and "On Learned Ignorance"
If it were “no time” or “timelessness” then it would be the ex nihilo - void, null, empty – which preceded God’s Creation of “all that there is” – both spiritual and physical.
That is revelation. "Before" God created time, there was nothing. We believe God created from nothing.
The Father is not begotten. Jesus Christ is begotten of the Father. The Spirit is from the Father by the Son.
"the Spirit PROCEEDS from the Father THROUGH the Son". The Father is the principle of the Spirit. Kosta, anything to add? Otherwise, you have expressed the catholic/orthodox trinitarian belief.
Regards
As the members of this sect learn what their church believes they will either embrace it, or reject it. My unity is with those that embrace the gospel, regardless of the sect they are in, and it is those fellow brothers and sisters in CHRIST I look forward to being yoked with.
The fishin’ is just lousy today...
You make a good point. However, if someone is a member of the RCC and truly places their Faith Alone in JESUS CHRIST do they have to leave? We have fellow Christians in the Episcopal church who are trying to get it to change, do they need to leave?
I think sometimes the LORD leaves them there for a reason. I really believe anybody can be redeemed.
Excellent post. Great facts.
Thank you
"the Spirit PROCEEDS from the Father THROUGH the Son". The Father is the principle of the Spirit. Kosta, anything to add? Otherwise, you have expressed the catholic/orthodox trinitarian belief
Insofar as I know that the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church teaches only one source, the Father, for everything and all, including divnity, and the Latins do not subscribe to double procession, I have no objection.
As regards His existence the Spirit proceeds form the Faher alone. As regards the Divine Economy of our salvation, the Spirit is sent through the Son.
As St. John of Damascus (8th c.) says:
Insofar as A-G's statement "The Spirit is from the Father by the Son" makes the Son a necessary co-element in Spirit's procession, which is not the Trinitarian belief.
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.