Posted on 07/22/2007 7:40:38 PM PDT by xzins
I don't see any contradictions. The empty cross recognizes the finished work, and the finished victory. A crucifix connotes that Jesus hasn't finished anything yet.
I don’t believe that a Protestant could have even come close to producing the movie The Passion of The Christ because the mindset is so different.
That must be true since almost no Protestants went to see it. :)
You got it. :)
No double talk. A person who is born again IN FACT, CANNOT fall away permanently. Aside from ourselves, none of us can know who is born again in fact. I have been perfectly consistent with this. The "certitude of salvation" is exclusive to the individual.
And how exactly are you able to ascertain JESUS' knowledge of whether He knew YOU? Those Christians in Mat 7 THOUGHT they knew Jesus, as well. But JESUS never knew THEM. In other words, they deceived THEMSELVES. Thus, how does a 'Christian' know he is not deceiving himself?
I recognize Christ's voice in the scriptures and I follow it.
You are trying to rationalize something that was a decision of the Father. The fact that it happened is enough for us. Whether it was necessary or not depends on to "what" you think the Father was bound by. If you say He "bound" Himself, then you say He didn't have a free will decision - that is not surprising - considering that fate is so important in your scheme of things.
What external force? I'm saying it was God's INTERNAL requirement of justice (His nature) that set the standard here.
Does His nature REQUIRE such an extravagant show of love? Or was it a free will decision? Now, it appear that you are saying God does not have a free will, either! His "nature" made Him do it?
Regards
Double talk. You quote me Mat 7. Doesn't it say that JESUS said He never knew the Christian? The Christian THOUGHT he knew Christ but was wrong. So what makes you any less deceived than these charecters?
The "certitude of salvation" is exclusive to the individual.
The certitude of salvation is exclusive to the community! Only those WITHIN it will be saved. The trick is whether you are in or not!
I recognize Christ's voice in the scriptures and I follow it.
That's what the people of Matthew 7 thought. However, God is the one who determines whether HE "knew" YOU.
Regards
No, since God is not responsible for everything. We are responsible for our own sin. If you want to say that God is responsible for all worthless things because God created everything, then that is one point of view. I don't happen to look at it that way.
Every one of you. Not all believed, but the ones who did repented first and then received the Holy Spirit. Not vice versa. Interesting. I presume that Peter hadn’t consulted with the Reformers first. :)
I don't understand, you are reciting the correct order. First, belief, then indwelling.
Funny, I don’t see statistical analysis or the science of numbers pertaining to sin of the elect versus non elect in my Bible. You wouldn’t be able to point me in the right direction would you?
No, I'm not aware of any study on the matter. I simply made a hypothesis that the changed nature will sin less than the Adamic nature. Does that sound wild and out in left field somewhere to you? :)
I don’t have a position that contradicts Jesus. Paul’s Marcionists, on the other hand, well, they may wish to reconsider.
In the context of these verses, Jesus is praying specifically for those who are heading out for the Great Mission. It does not say anywhere that those who are not specifically included in these prayers are automatically sent to hell.
We stress that God has put out His hand to all first. If it was not for God, we wouldn’t be able to attain Heaven at all. Not semi. Just God.
And if God did not open the Via, then we’d all be headed to hell.
You do have the traditions of men, and a hierarchy. You most emphatically do not have the Magisterium, though.
And your possessiveness of the Bible does not address its origins. You have Bibles out there that are obviously theologically wrong. You have not addressed how you identify Biblical correctness.
If God wills all, and man sins, then God is responsible for man’s sins. You cannot have it both ways.
Ah, but you may not be in concert with the Calvinists that have been populating this thread: the Holy Spirit comes upon men and then they believe and then the indwelling occurred. Come on, folks, what is it? Is the Holy Spirit first, or is the Belief first and the Holy Spirit second? I’m waiting on pins and needles.
If you make a quantititative statement about sin, I’d really like it if you have Scripture to back it upl
In all honesty, they are not. But in printed form I only have the NIV, RSV, and NKJV.
I use the online NAB, pedestrian as it is.
But I have it all. All the books. All the verses. All the Word of God. Does it not worry you that the Bibles that you have are abridged? Does it not worry you that that they may have been abridged for a reason, whether political, or otherwise?
Both stories mean something, they just don't relate to the Apostolic view of salvation. The story of Esau concerned the sovereignty of God and the fulfillment (and creation) of prophecy. The prodigal son does include ideas of redemption, but notice there is no Jesus character in the parable at all. How could it be about salvation as you see it?
“Where does Paul say that they are immune from returning to that style of life?”
In his argument on a previous thread, stfassisi used this quote as the basis for Mary’s eternal moral perfection.
“Luke 1:28 has the perfect passive participle, kecharitomene. The perfect stem of a Greek verb denotes the “continuance of a completed action”;(Blass and DeBrunner, 175.) “completed action with permanent result is denoted by the perfect stem.”(Smyth, sec. 1852:b.)”
When Paul says “For by grace are ye saved through faith...” Eph. 2:8, the verb “saved” is the same verb form, the perfect passive participle, so salvation is a “continuance of a completed action”, a “completed action with permanent result as denoted by the perfect stem.” Therefore, the saved can’t return to their previous style of life.
Praise God!!!
By "ordain" I mean "that which is set into God's plan". Many times, our sin DOES fit into God's plan so it is ordained. For example, God did not REACT to Pharaoh's obstinacy. He ordained it for His purposes. It was the same with Judas. It was not "fortuitous" that Judas would betray Jesus at precisely the right time. It was ordained.
Ah, but God "built" them that way, so how is it Hitler's fault that he killed millions of people indirectly? He had no free will and God ordained it. Thus, God will be judged in the after life for "ordaining" a Hitler?
There is no one qualified to judge God, so I don't understand the suggestion. It is Hitler's fault for what he did because he and everyone else is responsible for his own sin. God had no duty to grace him to such a degree as to prevent it. For His reasons, God passed over Hitler when He was giving out saving grace. Although to us, the horror of the holocaust is unimaginable, it nonetheless served God's purpose that it happened.
Post-salvation sanctification vs. salvation as process. Could you tell me how you distinguish salvation and sanctification?
Where does Paul say that they are immune from returning to that style of life?
I associate myself with BD's most learned response. :)
It would be pointless to address this verse to people who were not in ANY danger of returning to that life. Peter EXPLICITLY DOES say that.
It is righteous to preach against backsliding. That is a danger every Christian faces. It is a much more subtle point whether the backsliding can be permanent or not. Paul appears to think it cannot be permanent.
Paul addresses Christians and reminds them that they can return to their former life and lose their inheritance. Isn't that what Paul had been saying in the previous few chapters, such as in 1 Cor 3 and leading up to 1 Cor 6?
OK, I'll bite. Where does he say that? BD already showed that Paul said that can't happen.
Of course God had a free will decision. He decided to let the serpent into the Garden, all the while knowing what would happen, and also knowing all the ensuing consequences if He wanted some of His creation ultimately in Heaven with Him. He knew from the beginning that if He allows man to fall that only one thing would be able to save him (man). God decided it all.
Does His nature REQUIRE such an extravagant show of love? Or was it a free will decision? Now, it appear that you are saying God does not have a free will, either! His "nature" made Him do it?
God's justice requires what it requires, whether an act of love or wrath. If God had decided to let all men be lost, then that would have been fine with God's justice. But He didn't. He wanted to save some. OK, how can God do that while remaining true to Himself? Answer - He takes the punishment in the place of those He wishes to save. What is the punishment for all sins? Death. That's God's own rule, so He goes by it. In order to be true to Himself, Jesus had to die for some to be saved.
No, it doesn't say that at all. Where does Jesus recognize those he rebukes as Christians? NO WHERE. As I said before, to Apostolics a Christian is anyone who claims to be. The Bible has a stricter standard than that.
However, God is the one who determines whether HE "knew" YOU.
That's right, God determines.
The Bible is correct because God ordained that God's Church would and did accept it. There may be minor variations in different translations, but I've never come across anything earth shattering. The essence is still there in most major translations. But if you are talking about such things as the Mormon Bible, then it is wrong because God's Church did not accept it.
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.