Posted on 07/22/2007 7:40:38 PM PDT by xzins
The Lord's Supper (or Eucharist) should never be taken lightly.
No, friendship is not in this. We are not friends with God. We are His slaves, remember? His tools. Is your hammer or cordless drill your friend? Do you talk to them "face to face?"
I didn't write the verse, I just reported it accurately. :) The point here is obviously not to establish a "friendship". Instead, it's a simile. Verse 20 in Ex. 33 is clear that no one can "see" God and live. Yet, a few verses earlier we are told that God and Moses spoke "face to face". Is the solution to this dilemma to declare the OT wrong, or is it to interpret the passages so that they are both right? I choose the latter.
The issue was also of seeing God and not living or living. When God appeared as a burning bush did Moses stare at it? It was still God. Did people die when they looked at Jesus' face? Did they not look at the face of God?
Sure, there is obviously some manifestation of God that is not for humans to see while on earth. I don't know how it works, only that it does. This just isn't a big deal. The OT is not defeated with this argument.
There is an awful lot of rationalization involved to make the biblical verses explain themselves, to make them "fit." But, then that's what the lawyer's are for, right? :)
Absolutely. Aren't you glad that Jesus is your lawyer? :)
FK: "He is above us all, and no one can comprehend Him close to fully."
I have been told by many on this Forum that have the mind of Christ. I would imagine that comprehension comes with it. So, then what you are saying is that we have the mind of Christ, but not fully. Partially. Ten percent? Thirty? Eight nine?
I have no idea, and I have no idea where you are going with this reasoning. In theosis do you actually achieve a complete understanding of God, i.e. a Divine understanding?
Did the Jews have the mind of Christ? Did they have 10% of it? Do they now have more? how much (percent-wise) does one have to have the mind of Christ to comprehend God (and believe correctly, and interpret the scripture correctly) to be saved?
Why are you throwing this on me, I didn't bring it up? :) The concept of adopting the mind of Christ is Biblical. I think you would say it is part of the process of theosis and I would say it is part of sanctification. I see no reason to criticize the idea of becoming more like Christ. :) I thought we all agreed on that part.
When He said (paraphrasing) "Don't go to the Gentiles but preach only to the twelve tribes of Israel" that is taken literally.
If true, then aren't you violating your own principle of God's impartiality?
You may be interested to know that the Greek word εκλεκτος (eklektos) also applies to Christ (Messiah). It literally means "elected." But the election itself, as was the case with the Jews, does not mean the "elect" will live up to their election's promises (Christ exclusded, of course).
2 Pet 1:1-15 makes that abundantly clear.
Oh, indeed.
God made the first Covenant, knowing the people would blow it, thus setting the table for the New Covenant. It was part of the plan all along
So, God created the first Covenant and predestined the people to corrupt it so that He could make another Covenant with them? But it's all people's fault?
My goodness, FK, how repulsive that is. Does it ever occur to you that it may be man's free will and disobedience that corrupted the first Covenant and not because God desired it?
Also, in this theology, God thwarts His own will by being "bound" by His plan.
Who ever said gradual was the same as wrong? God's revelation is never wrong. Our understanding of it is. It's like that TV show where you borrow vowels and have a few letters on the board and you try to construct a meaningful sentence out of it. As the vowels are added, the sentence begins to emerge. Christ provided all the vowels needed.
Until that time, no one was able to see God's intended message, save for the prophets and patriarchs, and even their message was not easily understood (it is understood retroactively through the lens of the Gospels, however, as we can NOW see that Isaiah was speaking of Chirst, for example, but that was no so clear in Isaiah's time).
Until one has the whole message, the entirety of the message is impossible to grasp. The crowing element of that message that makes the rest intelligible is our Lord's ministry recorded in the Gospels. The Gospels are the crown of the Bible. They are the very essence of God's message and the universal translator of the rest of the scriptures.
You responded: Cite one scripture for that principle. Here are many that speak of election/cjosen to salvation and the kingdom:
2Jo 1:1 The elder unto the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth; and not I only, but also all they that have known the truth;
2Jo 1:13 The children of thy elect sister greet thee. Amen.
Well, you have done my work for me. Thanks. Where does the word "elect" mean "eternally saved without any chance of losing it"? Clearly, John is writing to "the elect lady and her children", which most read as a particular Church community. As a whole, they are of the elect, since God has predestined them, called them to His community. However, as other Scriptures clearly point out, an individual can leave this community of their own volition.
The rest of the verses, same thing. We are called into the community. God's Spirit comes to men, they respond by repentance and are baptized. They are of the elect of the Church. Paul presumes that once in, that people will persevere and stick it out until the end. However, on the individual basis, it becomes plain that not every single member of the Church will persevere. Thus, the entire concept of perseverance. What would be the purpose of telling people to persevere if "all is done, you are elected for heaven's glory by God before the dawn of time"?
Regards
Perhaps an "unfortunate" (accidental?) choice of words? Hmmmm....I don't think so. Perhaps it's the ancient way of saying "directly" (i.e. "live"). We can even rationalize that the burning bush was not the "face" of God, Christ's face is. And all those who saw Christ have also seen God—and lived! There is another meaning to "seeing God" and I am not sure what it is. Again, maybe an ancient phrase denoting something else.
Aren't you glad that Jesus is your lawyer? :)
Of course! Except He is the ONLY lawyer who doesn't rationalize but speaks the truth as it is. :)
Kosta: So, then what you are saying is that we have the mind of Christ, but not fully. Partially. Ten percent? Thirty? Eight nine?
FK: I have no idea, and I have no idea where you are going with this reasoning. In theosis do you actually achieve a complete understanding of God, i.e. a Divine understanding?
The point is that our "understanding" of God has nothing to do with knowing God. This was the point of the hesychastic fathers and the entire Palamite doctrine (against western scholastic approach), who argued that it is not through academic and intellectual reasoning that we ascend to God, but through prayer, as the Russian catechism says that through prayer we encounter "Divine abyss where words fall silent, where reason fades, where all human knowledge and comprehension cease, where God is. It is not by speculative knowledge but in the depths of prayerful silence that the soul can encounter God, Who is ‘beyond everything’." Hardly a divine "understanding" FK. :)
Why are you throwing this on me, I didn't bring it up?
I am not. I am throwing the whole idea of "understanding" God through reason (naked rationalism), rationalizations, logic and what not. Reason helps us know OF God and ABOUT God but that doesn't mean one "knows" God through reason. We can't figure God out, FK. He is a Mystery, eternal unknown to our intellect; the hesychastic fathers called Him "darkness" (where our mind cannot reach), beyond comprehension. All we have are His manifestations, and even they are miracles of their own kind (Incarnation being the chief among them, Holy Trinity, etc.).
I was being facetious when I asked what percentage of Christ's mind one has to have to know Christ? Our relationship with God cannot be measured or hinged on our "understanding" of God. Intellect is capable of describing or knowing God. God is ineffable and unknoable.
Peter is merely telling us that God has given us promises to implement so that we won't fall in our Christian walk. I doubt if there is a Calvinist around who would say that Christians can't stumble. What we would also add is that God is rich in His love and mercy to help us through these times to see us home. We are not out on our own.
That would be a rather shocking statement if baptism is necessary for salvation.
Paul's primary purpose is to preach the Gospel. Paul then continues that he DID baptize people. As it turns out, he question his own memory. I would presume that other ministers actually performed the baptisms in most cases, sort of like a bishop and his deacons. The bishop preaches and the deacons serve the community's needs and perform particular rituals to aid the bishop.
Paul also tells us in Romans 6 that it is by BAPTISM that we die with Christ and are risen with Christ. I would say that is pretty crucial to Paul.
As b-d mentioned, there is absolutely no support for this view and he gave a number of excellent verses. There are more but his hands must have gotten tired. I always like throwing in Peter when talking to Catholics:
1Pe 1:1-2 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout...Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ..."
Yes, blue-duncan gave a number of verses, which none of them REQUIRES that I consider them as Scriptures detailing those who were chosen for heaven. They speak of merely being called into God's community. Paul presumes that once in, they would remain in. "Who would want to leave" must have been Paul's thought. However, it becomes a practical teaching that individuals DO want to leave. We see it in our own communities today. There is no point denying that people leave the faith, and it is equally pointless to say "they never were saved to begin with". This calls into question EVERYONE'S salvation, because no one knows if they will fall away 10 years from now.
Election is to the Community. The community as a whole will be saved for heaven, but individually, the Bible does not mention that each person who enters will persevere until the end. Thus, your verse from Peter tells me nothing about an individual being guaranteed eternal salvation.
For example:
"...For he who lacks these qualities is blind or short-sighted, having forgotten his purification from his former sins. Therefore, brethren, be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling and choosing you; for as long as you practice these things, you will never stumble; for in this way the entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be abundantly supplied to you. 2 Peter 1:9-11
How does Peter say we are saved into the eternal kingdom of our Lord? BY PRACTICING "THESE" THINGS, which Peter lists in the preceding verses. Not by merely being called into the community. And CERTAINLY not by making a one-time declaration of "Lord, Lord". Thus, Peter refutes your interpretation of Peter.
I would suggest you are misinterpreting Romans 2. Paul is NOT saying there are some who can be saved apart from Christ.
That's not what I wrote, Harley. I said people can be saved outside of the community. CHRIST HIMSELF will send His Spirit to WHOM HE WILLS. Even if this person is a pagan. Thus, God is not bound to save ONLY those within the community. Romans 2 clearly shows us that even pagans (those outside of the visible Church) can have a law written on their hearts. Who put it there, Harley? I never said that a person is saved without Christ. That is ridiculous. I am saying, just as the Catholic Church STILL says today, a person can be saved outside of the visible community - just as Paul wrote 2000 years ago.
No, God does not desire men to love Him.
Eh? What sort of relationship do you have with God? A legal one?
We can't see anything unless God reveals it to us.
That's true, and just the same, we must respond to what God reveals to us. That is the reason for revelation. So that we can respond to it.
It is for OUR benefit-not God's. If it was not for us understanding the unrighteous, we would not understand mercy and grace. We can only measure our depravity and God's glory against some sort of yardstick. That yardstick is the world around us.
That doesn't explain why God is not pleased with a righteous man.
Regards
Please see my last response to jo kus. As I said, I was not attempting to argue for the correctness of the premises, only to show that the conclusion was validly drawn from the premises. The question was being asked how a Calvinist could draw a particular conclusion, and I provided an example of the validity of the conclusion. The issue was never whether or not it was a logically sound argument, especially since the statements originally made regarding Calvinists were themselves unsound.
FYI, I simply said LOL! Your comment, however, is way over the top.
I apologize. I was not in a happy place yesterday. Generally though, laughing at someone's conclusion that way rarely succeeds in anything but an escalation of the argument, and that's how it came off to me. Again, I apologize for my reaction.
I understand that the Reformed believe that a member of the elect knows that he is with no doubt.
Therefore if one does not know that one is of the elect and therefore would be heading off to everlasting hell, would there be any impetus for that non elect to join the Calvinist faith rather than, say, the Catholic faith, which teaches that all men have the possibility of salvation?
Just wondering.
1) People are elected into the community of God
2) People can be saved outside of the community
3) Therefore some people can saved but not elected.
Isn't this correct?
At the risk of sounding preachy, there is far too much emphasis on what wonderful people we are. We should put this in perspective.
Our God is a God of love and wonder. He is also a God of righteous judgment. Man hate God.
Because of this, our righteous Judge has decreed that man should be sent to the most vilest of places to suffer eternal torment. If that sounds a bit harsh, keep in mind that we hate God so much that we would rather be there than with Him. We deserve, according to His righteous judgment, to be casted into the flaming torment where the worms will eat us for eternity. And this is a most appropriate place for us as difficult as that is for us to understand.
God is also gracious and merciful and has decree, for unknown reasons, to spare some of us from the pains of hell. We don't deserve it or merit it; its simply a gift given to us. If we understood hell and our position, we would understand this great gift.
For us to say that we have any righteousness in us is not to understand the gravity of our situation. We are depraved people that do not want to honor God. God has spared some of us His wrath through His Son.
Does the individual place his sole trust in the complete, perfect work of Christ, with no effort of his own?
If so, then they are elect. Doesn't matter what church they belong to.
the Catholic faith, which teaches that all men have the possibility of salvation?
Why not just become Mormon? After all, they get a second chance after death to get it right.
These verses speak to a mother and her children; her family, unless you are stretching the meaning of community to reach more than the church. You still haven't cited any verses for your proposition that election means elect to a community. Over an over in Revelation it is the individual name in the "Lamb's Book of Life" that determines who is permitted in heaven; not membership in a "community".
2Jo 1:1 The elder unto the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth; and not I only, but also all they that have known the truth;
2Jo 1:13 The children of thy elect sister greet thee. Amen.
"You may be interested to know that the Greek word εκλεκτος (eklektos) also applies to Christ (Messiah). It literally means "elected." But the election itself, as was the case with the Jews, does not mean the "elect" will live up to their election's promises (Christ exclusded, of course)."
I am familiar with Greek and you will notice in the last phrase "who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time", the verb form is the familiar "present, passive, participle", like the verb form in "full of grace" or "highly favoured". This means, according to your lexicon, that the elect were kept and are being kept by the power of God. So, like Paul, the elect can say "I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I have committed unto Him against that day", unlike others who have no hope since their salvation is dependent upon their being able to keep themselves.
1Pe 1:1-5, "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout...Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ...Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time."
That's not entirely accurate. The Reformed believe that a member of the elect can know that he is without reasonable doubt, but not necessarily that they will. Assurance is not assured :)
Therefore if one does not know that one is of the elect and therefore would be heading off to everlasting hell, would there be any impetus for that non elect to join the Calvinist faith rather than, say, the Catholic faith, which teaches that all men have the possibility of salvation?
First of all, I need to reiterate that a Calvinist's belief that they are elect is deduced from their assurance of their own salvation. Calvinists are certainly not the only group of Christians who believe they can know they are saved. ;)
Second, because knowledge of one's own election is derived deductively by their own assurance of salvation, it follows necessarily that they would know they are not "heading off to everlasting hell." It does not however follow that a lack of knowledge of their own election necessarily means they ARE "heading off to everlasting hell." One need not KNOW they are elect in order to BE elect.
Third, Reformed churches do not target the elect only. By that I mean the focus of their evangelistic efforts is not finding the elect but rather preaching the Gospel to all men knowing that the Holy Spirit is the one responsible for regenerating and quickening the elect to faith. The focus of evangelism is to be faithful, not convincing.
Lastly, despite claims to the contrary, the Reformed faith teaches that whosoever will may come. That we differ in our understanding of who actually will come and why does not change that fact. We could go into several reasons why someone may want to join a Reformed church vs a Catholic church, or vice versa, but suffice it to say that the doctrine of election is only one part of the Reformed view as a whole. The Reformed church still preaches the sinfulness of man, his need for salvation, the person and work of Christ in providing the sole means of that salvation, and the need to be diligent as a disciple of Him who saves us.
Hopefully that clarifies a bit.
Assuming you are not as thin skinned as I maybe you can answer it.
"...is your God the same God that a five point Calvinist worships?"
Let me repeat the question you missed (ignored).
"... It would also be appreciated if you detail how much you know, really know."
Agreed!
So,why do you diminish that by by saying God creates people destined for hell.
What’s the point of judgment then?
God sent them to hell from the instance He thought of them.
You need to ask yourself why God would put these(hell bound) people on earth in the first place and not be able to blame God for putting them there?
Time for Mass....
I,ll say a prayer for you
Amen. The RCC rendition sounds eerily similar to Hillary's "It Takes a Village."
Salvation does not "take a village" nor a particular church nor even a particular sacrament. It only takes Jesus Christ dying on and being resurrected from the cross. If you are named by God as one of His sheep, like the thief next to Jesus on Calvary, you will know your salvation is by Christ alone, and thus you will see heaven the moment you leave this earth.
We have His promise...
"Be not afraid; only believe." -- Mark 5:36
Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved." -- Ephesians 1:4-6"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;
God accepts each individual member of the elect in Christ and conforms them to Him "to the praise of the glory of his grace." We may ask "why" and Christ has provided the answer...
Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight." -- Matthew 11:25-26"...Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.
This is the reason for everything -- because "it seemed good in thy sight," which includes both the revelation of the truth to His children and the withholding of that revelation from those who are not counted among His children.
"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek." -- Romans 1:16
And who believes in Jesus Christ? By the grace of God, it is those...
"Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." -- John 1:13
Our faith is founded on the eternal promise of God to the individual --
"Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are His." -- 2 Timothy 2:19
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.