Posted on 01/27/2008 7:56:14 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
Very true.
And it is just as true that the elect of God will repent of his sins.
We are not forgiven because we repent. We repent because we have been purchased with a price and Christ will lose none whom the Father gave Him to bring to Him.
We repent because God has freely, mercifully given us new eyes to see our sins in order to loathe every one of them, and therefore we ask for forgiveness of our sins, all the while knowing Christ has already paid for them in full.
The reprobate whose eyes remain blind to the truth of both his own sins and the mercy of God will not repent nor believe because His heart is still made of stone.
Out of heaven he made thee to hear his voice, that he might instruct thee: and upon earth he shewed thee his great fire; and thou heardest his words out of the midst of the fire." -- Deuteronomy 4:35-36"Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know that the LORD he is God; there is none else beside him.
...the sooner you will understand Christ's accomplishment on the Cross, which made it possible for us to be saved.
And there is the difference between the "possibility" preached by the EO and RCC and the fully-accomplished will of God through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ preached by the true church.
Christ did not come to merely offer salvation. He came to accomplish salvation for all those whom God entrusted to Him.
Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy... [Christ] Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed. For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls." -- 1 Peter 2:9-10,24-25"But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;
But of course I do, FK! There is a world of difference in saying the Scriptures are "God's inerrant word" and the "Scriptures are very important to our faith."
Why are Scriptures so very important to us? Because our faith is a way of life. The message of our Sunday scriptural passages are to be taken with us home and lived. Each chapter of the Gospel carries in it a moral of the story to be used and followed in our journey.
Just to flesh it out, since you appear to challenge my assertion that the Orthodox Church disavows your view of scripture, do you say that the Church AGREES with your view of scriptures and the things you have been saying about them?
The Church reads the Gospels and the Epistles as they are written without making judgment on their factual veracity. The Church is not concerned with the historicity of the events, but with the spiritual message in them.
I can definitely state that the Church interprets the Bible in the allegorical sense, and that this has been the practice of the Church ever since the beginning and that it comes from messianic Judaism.
I was shocked some years ago when an Orthodox priest told me that even if Christianity never happened, it should have been invented! What he meant with that is that if it took a fictional narrative to convey the love of God, so be it.
We believe that God revealed Himself in love and that whatever conveys love to the rest of humanity is from God. That can be a factual act of mercy, or a fictional story, it makes very little difference. It is God's love that is real to all believers no matter how it is conveyed.
That doesn't mean God wroite it.
If a knowledge of a firefighter rescuing a child from a burning building inspires me to write a story about it, it is not the firefighter who wrote it, but I, through my sense and perceptions.
Our Natinal Anthem was inspired by a gun battle, and bombs splattering in the air, and a battered American Flag waving definatly. It took a human being (a 35-year old amateur poet Fracis Scott Key in 1814) to see this, and to be moved by the moment, and to write it in his way. Someone else might have written something else; I am sure the perception of the opposite side would not have agreed with Francis Scott's version...of the truth. Tthe song was actually made our National Anthem by the acto of Congress, 117 years later in 1931! And you probbaly thought it was our Anthem all along, didn't you? :)
What do you have on your side that would make my (our) position dangerous?
To claim that anything penned by man's hand and mind is actually God writing it.
No, never. We have:
Heb 9:27-28 : 27 Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28 so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.
Along with this we have the parable in Luke 16:19-31. The chasm between Heaven and hell can never be crossed. Further, we are told that Jesus took away sins once. It does not say some sins, or only past sins, just sins. All sins. Jesus' sacrifice was indeed a powerful one, not a weak one that only made a partial payment. It wasn't Jesus' style to do things half-baked.
What punishment can be worse than eternal separation from God, an eternal spiritual darkness?
Nothing, but what does that have to do with anything? In terms of being saved or lost, man doesn't have the payment for even one sin. Only Christ can make the payment for us and He DOES! But that doesn't mean that we won't also receive temporal punishments for sin during life on earth.
It seems to me that some only see the atonement part, and not the repentance part that the Bible speaks of.
As Dr. E. said so well, BECAUSE He atoned for us we can repent. And all of the elect WILL repent.
There is no forgiveness without repentance, FK. The sooner you realize that's the message of the entire Bible (even the OT), the sooner you will understand Christ's accomplishment on the Cross, which made it possible for us to be saved.
That's a very small accomplishment, in fact it's more like a punt. But we see again how God must be made smaller so that man can be made greater. That is the natural desire of man as he is born. We see Christ's sacrifice as being far more important and valuable.
FK: The regenerated mind should not want to habitually sin because the regenerated mind wants to please God.
It's irrelevant. The regenerated man still sins. But the regenerated man will also repent of his sins, not in order to buy his way into heaven but because he regrets having turned away from God, because he places God first and all the wordily things second, because He loves God and doesn't wish to sin against Him.
Isn't that what I JUST said??? :)
So then I would assume that you think the Biblical account of Pentecost is all myth? For example:
Acts 2:1-4 : 1 When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. 2 Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. 4 All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them. ................
Acts 2:31-33 : 31 Seeing what was ahead, he [David] spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay. 32 God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact. 33 Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear. ................
Acts 2:38-39 : 38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off — for all whom the Lord our God will call."
Is it correct then that you accept the first part of verse 38, but reject the second part? If so, that's pretty selective I think. :) If Paul introduced the Holy Spirit then He surely is not from God, He would be an invention of Paul's. That tells me you don't believe it as the Bible tells it. Hypothetically, if the Bible turned out to be right and it was something like an "alien presence", like you said, may I assume that you would reject this presence since it is alien to you?
I think you are concentrating on the the stories more than on the message behind them.
I just think that when one throws out the history behind the stories the message itself is ruined. Myths can be and are interpreted in a multitude of ways. It's whatever the reader wants it to mean since it never really happened. Inconvenient elements of the story can be dropped without penalty (it's not part of the message) and new elements can be added in to taste. That is faith a la carte, and with all respect that's what I see you doing when you dismiss the God of the OT.
The essence of Christ's teachings is fundamentally different from the angry messages of other Jewish "messiahs," including St. John the Forerunner/Baptist. He was as unlike the Jewish warrior-king as it gets.
Not only did John the Baptist specifically deny being the Messiah, but Jesus Himself said that no finer person (excluding Himself) has ever walked the earth. So, I would assume you might think those passages never happened either? If the message of Jesus was fundamentally different from John the Baptist's would not Jesus have condemned it, at least in His heart?
But that moral is determined by men, NOT by God. Therefore, the hope that you have must be in those men that you follow, that they were true believers and knew what they were talking about. All this in the midst of the corruption in doctrine that we have talked about that plagued the early Church.
The Church reads the Gospels and the Epistles as they are written without making judgment on their factual veracity. The Church is not concerned with the historicity of the events, but with the spiritual message in them. (bold added)
OK, I wasn't sure if that was just you or the whole Orthodox Church. If the Orthodox Church is not concerned with the historicity of the Bible, then I have my answer as to how it views the Bible, all Orthodox Catechisms and writings to the contrary notwithstanding. If one or a group is unconcerned with historicity, then they completely forfeit any foundation for whatever claims they have about their own faith. Why in the world would anyone follow Patristic writers if THEIR followers threw out the inspired authors of the Bible in terms of historicity? Fables based upon myths. Truly, all that is left is blind faith. Why should I follow Orthodoxy? "No reason per se", I imagine the response would be, "we just blindly believe it".
I was shocked some years ago when an Orthodox priest told me that even if Christianity never happened, it should have been invented! What he meant with that is that if it took a fictional narrative to convey the love of God, so be it.
That shocks me too. Men write fiction. God has no desire to, without making it obvious in advance as with a parable. I'm not going to put words in this priest's mouth, but it sounds like it is possible that he would agree that Christianity as we know it today was basically fashioned by man.
Oh I see, we are back to not speaking the same language, FK. Look up the definition of a "want" or a "need" and you will see that it they are inseparably connected to each other.
Logically, those who have no needs want nothing (some call it a "bliss: and others just "dead").
Saying that God "wants" implies that God "needs." And that is anthropomorphism. And, we know that the Bible is full of such divine "desires" because we cannot write a book about God without introducing anthropomorphism and therefore distortion of God as He really is.
We Give Him "hands" and "ears" and "eyes" and what not, and the left and right "side," and yet He is a Spirit that fills the entire Creation, that pre-existed the Creation.
If we stick with the limited concepts and words words we have, knowing that God needs nothing, we must conclude that if God does want something, it is for no reason whatsoever!
And that would create a God who does things random ply and wihtout a purpose. So, you see, our minds and words cannot explain why whatever created this existence does what it does, because our own words are anthropomorphic.
And the Bible leads to such an anthropomorphic idea of a God, a Zeus-like figure. That's why we concentrate on the message and not the story. We need to ask ourselves: what lesson is there, what is the revealed truth? For we believe in the revealed truth of God, expressed in imperfect words and concepts of the authors of biblical books.
For one thing God wants us to understand (eventually) every jot and tittle in the Bible
Really? And I thought He is telling us that we need to love God and others as ourselves. God doesn't want us to understand. God leads; men follow. When Jesus says things so that we may understand, he is referring to "understanding" in the heart, in the spirit He taught. He gave sermons, He performed miracles. He did things. He didn't have group discussions and Bible study groups, FK.
I NEED food and water. I WANT a 1959 Cadillac (not pink). You don't see any difference here?
Logically, those who have no needs want nothing (some call it a "bliss: and others just "dead").
No, that can't be right since needs are limited and wants are virtually unlimited. God needs for nothing, but He surely wants innumerable things to happen within time. God does not need us. His existence and way of existence would be unaffected based on whether we ever came into existence. However, it is clear that He wants us to be here, else He would not have created, and that He wants to save His elect to be with Him in Heaven.
If we stick with the limited concepts and words we have, knowing that God needs nothing, we must conclude that if God does want something, it is for no reason whatsoever!
Not at all. While we may not always know WHAT His reasons are we can be sure THAT He has reasons, or else He is a random and directionless God. The Bible certainly does not teach that.
And that would create a God who does things randomly and without a purpose. So, you see, our minds and words cannot explain why whatever created this existence does what it does, because our own words are anthropomorphic.
OK, on some level we are sort of on the same wavelength. But here they are not OUR words, they are God's words given to us as His choice for us to understand according to our limitations. Of course we can't understand on God's level, but we CAN meaningfully understand on the level God has given us. Otherwise, it's all just a big tease.
FK: For one thing God wants us to understand (eventually) every jot and tittle in the Bible.
Really? And I thought He is telling us that we need to love God and others as ourselves.
Yes, the Bible gives us the HOW about loving Him and others. Jesus also specifically taught that we should learn the scriptures:
Matt 22:29 : Jesus replied, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.
The way to avoid error is to know God's word.
God doesn't want us to understand. God leads; men follow. When Jesus says things so that we may understand, he is referring to "understanding" in the heart, in the spirit He taught. He gave sermons, He performed miracles. He did things. He didn't have group discussions and Bible study groups, FK.
What, content is irrelevant and what feels good in the heart is all that matters? Paul spends most of the NT dealing directly with content, not mysticism and feel-good vague notions. Of course God wants us to understand. Why else would He bother to communicate with us (if you believe that He does)? I want my dog to understand content to the best of his capability. Why would God want less for us?
***Oh I see, we are back to not speaking the same language, FK. Look up the definition of a “want” or a “need” and you will see that it they are inseparably connected to each other.
I NEED food and water. I WANT a 1959 Cadillac (not pink). You don’t see any difference here?***
Different uses of the word ‘want’.
desire: feel or have a desire for; want strongly; “I want to go home now”; “I want my own room”
privation: a state of extreme poverty
have need of; “This piano wants the attention of a competent tuner”
hunt or look for; want for a particular reason; “Your former neighbor is wanted by the FBI”; “Uncle Sam wants you”
lack: the state of needing something that is absent or unavailable; “there is a serious lack of insight into the problem”; “water is the critical deficiency in desert regions”; “for want of a nail the shoe was lost”
need: anything that is necessary but lacking; “he had sufficient means to meet his simple needs”; “I tried to supply his wants”
wish or demand the presence of; “I want you here at noon!”
be without, lack; be deficient in; “want courtesy”; “want the strength to go on living”; “flood victims wanting food and shelter”
wish: a specific feeling of desire; “he got his wish”; “he was above all wishing and desire”
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
The use of the word ‘want’ by kosta is defined by 2, 3 and 5.
***However, it is clear that He wants us to be here, else He would not have created, and that He wants to save His elect to be with Him in Heaven.***
Clarify if you would, with the logic just demonstrated, how the elect is not defined as the entire human population. If you would, please.
***But here they are not OUR words, they are God’s words given to us as His choice for us to understand according to our limitations. Of course we can’t understand on God’s level, but we CAN meaningfully understand on the level God has given us.***
In an orderly progessive fashion, to the abilities of humans to absorb that information.
***Of course God wants us to understand. Why else would He bother to communicate with us (if you believe that He does)? I want my dog to understand content to the best of his capability. Why would God want less for us?***
We are not dogs. God wants for all mankind to love Him with all our hearts, minds and souls. Dogs cannot. God gives us the ability to understand and the information to understand.
If your dog does not wish to understand or is incapable, do you whip out your .44 magnum and blow his head off? To carry the analogy to the next level, why would God do the figurative same to us if we cannot understand Him or love Him as He wishes?
I acknowledge that it is POSSIBLE for the uses of "want" and "need" to bleed into each other, however I am obviously talking about normal usage in the English language. I was defending an attack against Reformed theology asserting that God has need of evil. In common usage, one reasonable conclusion would be that the Reformed believe that God is subservient to some invented "need" for evil, so, I had to reveal the fallacy of that assertion. I understood that the intent of the attack was semantic, and so I defended accordingly. No problem.
FK: ***However, it is clear that He wants us to be here, else He would not have created, and that He wants to save His elect to be with Him in Heaven.***
Clarify if you would, with the logic just demonstrated, how the elect is not defined as the entire human population. If you would, please.
Certainly! :) Here are a few passages:
Rom 8:28-30 : 29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. (Are there others besides the elect who are foreknown, predestined, conformed to the likeness of Christ, called, justified, and glorified? I just don't think so.)
Matt 24:22-24 : 22 If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened. 23 At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, 'There he is!' do not believe it. 24 For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect — if that were possible. (Clearly Jesus teaches that some are elect and some are not.)
Rom 11:7 : What then? What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did. (Obviously drawing a distinction between the unrighteous Jews and the elect.)
Titus 1:1 : Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ for the faith of God's elect and the knowledge of the truth that leads to godliness— (Only God's elect have [true] faith.)
Isa 45:4 : For Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me. KJV (Only "Israel" is God's elect.)
Isa 65:9 : And I will bring forth a seed out of Jacob, and out of Judah an inheritor of my mountains: and mine elect shall inherit it, and my servants shall dwell there. KJV (Only the elect WILL inherit from God. We know not everyone does.)
1 Peter 1:1-2 : 1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied. KJV (The elect are not everyone, they are strangers to the world and chosen by God from the foundations.)
There simply can be no argument that the Bible clearly distinguishes between the elect and all men.
FK: ***Of course God wants us to understand. Why else would He bother to communicate with us (if you believe that He does)? I want my dog to understand content to the best of his capability. Why would God want less for us?***
We are not dogs. God wants for all mankind to love Him with all our hearts, minds and souls. Dogs cannot. God gives us the ability to understand and the information to understand. (emphasis added)
Yes, God gives this ability to the elect. At the least you and I agree that God desires for and does in fact give us understanding. I read Kosta to be arguing against that idea.
If your dog does not wish to understand or is incapable, do you whip out your .44 magnum and blow his head off?
Not yet, for it does not please me.
To carry the analogy to the next level, why would God do the figurative same to us if we cannot understand Him or love Him as He wishes?
As I foreshadowed, comparatively what matters are God's choices, not our performances. God gives saving grace to His sheep, but not all are His sheep. He knows that there is nothing the non-sheep can do, but those were His wishes anyway. Those are His affairs and I do not question Him. My response is to be VERY thankful and VERY sheepish. :)
You are looking at this on a surface, artificially separating essential needs (to breathe, eat, sleep, etc.) with non-essential ones (desires).
All needs, however, have a cause. Needs can be physiological or psychological. A need is that which moves you to action, that gives rise to your will to act, regardless if it is physiologically necessary (for survival) or not.
If we look at God as a being with no needs, essential or otherwise, then His will has no cause. In other words, God wills "just because," for no reason whatsoever!
And since we say that God the Father is without cause, it follows that everything He does and wants is without cause, for He is the cause of everything, including your needs and wants, as the Creed says "all things visible and invisible."
This is how lunacy about God is born and grows into pantheistic caricature of God in the Eastern religions or a fairy-tale deity of pagans and, apparently, some Christians .
There is another twist in this anthropomorphic lunacy that men have created about God: being Transcendent and Eternal, God has already thought of, created and decided on all things for all times and has nothing else to create or think or want. He did all the work, "thinking" and "wanting" from all eternity, before the world existed.
We can say this because we consider God to be perfect. Being "perfect," by the definition and meaning of the word, means to be complete or finished. Nothing can be added to or or substracted from it. Again, our words cannot adequately describe anything that is what we call spiritual; no amount of words will adequately describe God, just as no amount of words will describe love.
One must wonder if there really is such a thing as love. I am almost certain that if we would describe it or image it somehow, it would be a variety of loves, each suited to every man's fancy.
We cannot understand God, FK. We can only speak of God in human terms thinking of Christ. Not a burning bush, a rumbling volcano, the Sun, the lightning, etc., but only through Christ. That's why He says in the Gospels that we can go to the Father only through Him, through His image. That's why we can interpret the rets of the Bible only through the Gospels and ot the other way around.
There is nothing in the Bible that says that. This is something the Protestants/Baptists imply by their (human) definition of what "inspired" means.
Besides, I have already told you this before, any other religion claims that God wrote their holy books too. You have dismissed that without any proof because there isn't any.
Yes, the Bible gives us the HOW about loving Him and others. Jesus also specifically taught that we should learn the scriptures: Matt 22:29 : Jesus replied, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.
No, not "we." He is telling this to the Sadducees, a priestly class, who were expected to know the Scriptures the way you'd expect a physician to know anatomy or a lawyer to know the law. It's their job. It's not everyone "job" to know the scriptures, FK. Nowhere does the Bible say it is. That is the Protestant/Baptist superstition known as the sola scriptura.
The way to avoid error is to know God's word
How can you know the "God's word" if there is no agreement on what that knowledge entails? There are thousands of denominations that interpret "God's word" differently, the "core beliefs" notwithstanding, and even there (such as the Holy Trinity) it is not universal among so-called "Christians."
Each and every Christian or "Christian" sect uses precisely the same "God's word" you and I are using, to support their sectarian beliefs, and each assumes being absolutely right.
As I said, He didn't have Bible study sessions. He came to Peter and said "Follow Me!" End of discussion. There was nothing to understand.
Paul is trying to "explain" this mysterious faith to Greeks and Romans, accustomed to philosophy and reason, and he is using the approach they can grasp. But what is he "explaining," FK? That Christ rose from the dead? Is that an "explanation?" Or is it a profound mystery that requires blind belief? Or hat with His Blood He paid for our sins? Or that by being dunked into the water we are mysteriously "born-again" and the "elect" of God?
And don't tell me that being told that all your past, present and future sins have been forgiven because you call on the name of the Lord, and that your salvation is assured no matter what you do for the rest of your life is not a "feel-good" notion that appeals to our human nature!
I think that is incorrect, FK. We want our dogs to obey by recognizing the command. We can euphemistically say that the dog "understands" but that is the fallacy of anthropomorphizing our pets as well.
It's simply Pavlovian reflex "learning" (actually recognition). You have the bell and you have the food. Bell becomes a "word" for food. Even flatworms learn, FK. You can train them with light. I don't think we would ever imply that our flatworms (if you have such "pets") somehow "understand" our flashlight signals
***I acknowledge that it is POSSIBLE for the uses of “want” and “need” to bleed into each other, however I am obviously talking about normal usage in the English language.***
I’d wander past ‘possible’ and over in the ‘certain’ aisle.
***I was defending an attack against Reformed theology asserting that God has need of evil.***
It was no attack; it was a description. Reformed theology requires evil. Proof?
“God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established” (WCF, III.I).
God ordained whatsoever comes to pass in Reformed theology. Whatsoever means ‘everything’. Everything that there was, is and will be.
God has always existed. God created everything. If the Reformed God created everything and ordained everything, then He created and ordained evil. The second part of the paragraph:
yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin
is merely backpedalling and attempting to negate portions of the first part.
***Rom 8:28-30 : 29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. (Are there others besides the elect who are foreknown, predestined, conformed to the likeness of Christ, called, justified, and glorified? I just don’t think so.)***
Predestination to heaven does NOT imply predestination to hell, especially since it is never ever written down in Scripture anywhere.
***Matt 24:22-24 : 22 If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened. 23 At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or, ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. 24 For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect — if that were possible. (Clearly Jesus teaches that some are elect and some are not.)***
http://www.bible-history.com/isbe/E/ELECT/ says that:
Otherwise, and prevalently in the New Testament, it denotes a human community, also described as believers, saints, the Israel of God; regarded as in some sense selected by Him from among men, objects of His special favor, and correspondingly called to special holiness and service.
It most certainly does not say that anyone is predestined to hell or even imply it. It says that these elect are called to special holiness and service. A John the Baptist or Mother Teresa, say.
***There simply can be no argument that the Bible clearly distinguishes between the elect and all men.***
The definitions are at odds with Scripture.
***If your dog does not wish to understand or is incapable, do you whip out your .44 magnum and blow his head off?
Not yet, for it does not please me.***
I hope that you are joking here.
***To carry the analogy to the next level, why would God do the figurative same to us if we cannot understand Him or love Him as He wishes?
As I foreshadowed, comparatively what matters are God’s choices, not our performances. God gives saving grace to His sheep, but not all are His sheep. He knows that there is nothing the non-sheep can do, but those were His wishes anyway. Those are His affairs and I do not question Him. My response is to be VERY thankful and VERY sheepish. :)***
John 10:
14
I am the good shepherd, and I know mine and mine know me,
15
just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I will lay down my life for the sheep.
16
I have other sheep 7 that do not belong to this fold. These also I must lead, and they will hear my voice, and there will be one flock, one shepherd.
Jesus comes for all men. The flock that He has are the believers - His mission (which he has passed on to us) is to go and get all men and bring them into His flock.
I am glad we agree there is no atonement after death. But notice the very verses you post, namely "and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him."
In other words, salvation is yet to come to those who persevere. We only know that God will save those who do until the end, but we will keep our end of the "bargain." We can turn away from God at any time through sin and in doing so be lost. Those who stay faithful until the end (and that means repentant even though they will be sinful) will be saved. Those who fall away will not.
Protestantism/Baptism makes a fundamental error here in assuming that the moment you accept Christ you cannot fall away, and that you have a "free ride" from there on. That's not what the Bible tells us.
This is also where Luther's pecca fortiter error comes in: you cannot be faithful and continue to sin boldly. Those who give in to sin boldly have forsaken Christ.
Only Christ can make the payment for us and He DOES! But that doesn't mean that we won't also receive temporal punishments for sin during life on earth
The Bible teaches throughout the same theme: repent and your sins shall be forgiven, relegated to divine oblivion. Christ's sacrifice is powerful indeed, as you say, but He shed His blood only for some even though God would desire all men to be saved. That's because some will repent, and some won't. So, while His sacrifice certainly is good enough for the whole world, only some of the world will repent and be forgiven.
And remember that the Lord's Prayer tells us to forgive before we can ask for forgiveness. We must not have grudges, anger or hate, no matter how Christian we may think we may be.
As Dr. E. said so well, BECAUSE He atoned for us we can repent.
That's correct. The operant word is can. He made it possible for us to do so. Some choose not to, however, and they will not be atoned.
Kosta: The regenerated man still sins. But the regenerated man will also repent of his sins, not in order to buy his way into heaven but because he regrets having turned away from God, because he places God first and all the wordily things second, because He loves God and doesn't wish to sin against Him.
FK: Isn't that what I JUST said??? :)
When? From what I know of the Reformed theology, no. The reformed theology says that we must repent because God predestined us to repent. What Orthodox theology says is that we repent because Christ made it possible to (i.e. we can) repent.
***I am glad we agree there is no atonement after death. But notice the very verses you post, namely “and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.”
In other words, salvation is yet to come to those who persevere. We only know that God will save those who do until the end, but we will keep our end of the “bargain.” We can turn away from God at any time through sin and in doing so be lost. Those who stay faithful until the end (and that means repentant even though they will be sinful) will be saved. Those who fall away will not.***
Nicely put.
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num21.htm has this to say about perseverence:
Free will can resist and reject God’s grace :
“You stiff-necked people...you always resist the Holy Spirit” (Acts 7:51). The angels possessed grace and perfectly intact intellect, and yet many of them freely sinned and rejected God. Adam and Eve possessed grace and a perfectly intact nature, and yet they freely sinned. How much more so is it possible for the born-again Christian, who possesses grace but also a wounded nature and a darkened intellect, to sin also. Paul mentions sins which keep a man from the Kingdom of God: fornication, adultery, homosexuality, theft, greed, and so on (1 Cor 6:9-10).
When Jesus was expressly asked what one must do to gain eternal life, he answered, “keep the commandments,” and went on to list the moral commandments of the Decalogue (Matt 19:16-21). Revelation describes those whose lot is the burning pool of fire and sulfur, the second death: “cowards, the unfaithful, the depraved, murderers, the unchaste” and so on (Rev 21:8). Aren’t born-again Christians capable of these sins? And if they die in these sins, how can they possibly inherit heaven? If Adam and Eve could fall from grace, surely we can fall from grace as well. Surely we can harden our hearts and resist the Holy Spirit.
***The Bible teaches throughout the same theme: repent and your sins shall be forgiven, relegated to divine oblivion. Christ’s sacrifice is powerful indeed, as you say, but He shed His blood only for some even though God would desire all men to be saved. That’s because some will repent, and some won’t. So, while His sacrifice certainly is good enough for the whole world, only some of the world will repent and be forgiven.***
ibid
SUMMARY OF CATHOLIC TEACHING
1. God knows all things, including those who will be saved (THE ELECT). 2. God’s foreknowledge does not destroy, but includes, free will. 3. God desires all men to be saved. 4. Jesus died to redeem all men. 5. God provides sufficient grace for all men to be saved. 6. Man, in the exercise of his free will, can accept or reject grace. 7. Those who accept grace are saved, or born-again. 8. Those who are born-again can fall away or fall into sin. 9. Not everyone who is saved will persevere in grace. 10. Those who do persevere are God’s elect. 11. Those who do not persevere, or who never accepted grace, are the reprobate. 12. Since we can always reject God in this life, we have no absolute assurance that we will persevere. 13. We can have a moral assurance of salvation if we maintain faith and keep God’s commandments (1 John 2:1-6; 3:19-23; 5:1-3,13).
***The reformed theology says that we must repent because God predestined us to repent. What Orthodox theology says is that we repent because Christ made it possible to (i.e. we can) repent.***
All Catholic theology. God does not drag people into Heaven; neither does He hijack them and give them Stockholm Syndrome. Love is free and unconditional or it doesn’t exist. Jesus is love and mercy; the Reformed God isn’t, at least according to the WCF.
If those were His wishes than God is a partner with the devil according to the reformed because it is would be a sacrifice to create a soul for hell.Spin it all you want,but it is exactly that!
I can see clearly that this type of theology would lead the poor and people with hardship to think that they are of the non elect and lead to despair.
I am convinced that John Calvin was of satan for starting this type of theology and I actually get a chill whenever I see a picture of calvin,a very evil man by his own free will did not love our Lord,but rather his own mind and a book(the Bible) to which the Holy Spirit did not lead him to interpret. He did it his own selfish self seeking calvin way
I understand why believing The Gospel is so hard for the EO and RC's. If you did believe it the power of your Churches disappears. However, it doesn't make it any less true.
Yes we are to persevere to the end, but if you think you have the free will to do that you are wrong.
Matt. 24: 12-13 And because lawlessness will abound the love of many will grow cold. But he who endures to the end shall be saved.
Phil. 1:6 being confident of this very thing, that He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ;
It is all of God. God saves us. God indwells us to preserve us to the end. God will not abandon those that are His.
John 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever- the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you.
Hebrews 13:5 Let your conduct be without covetousness; be content with such things as you have. For He Himself has said I will never leave you nor forsake you.
So yes, once you are saved by Grace through Faith in Jesus Christ you will not be lost. The Holy Spirit will indwell you and never leave you. Unless of course your saying your church is stronger than Jesus Christ.
John 10:27-28 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand.
You are looking at this on a surface, artificially separating essential needs (to breathe, eat, sleep, etc.) with non-essential ones (desires).
Knowing that lurkers are reading I am going by common usages of terms and not allowing Reformed theology to be painted as holding that God has needs. That is what you were trying to do and so I must object. :)
If we look at God as a being with no needs, essential or otherwise, then His will has no cause. In other words, God wills "just because," for no reason whatsoever!
If YOU want to say that God has needs that's fine, but I ain't goin' there. :) It looks like by your terms a "need" can also be described as something desired which the needer does not have. What does God not have that He desires?
There is another twist in this anthropomorphic lunacy that men have created about God: being Transcendent and Eternal, God has already thought of, created and decided on all things for all times and has nothing else to create or think or want. He did all the work, "thinking" and "wanting" from all eternity, before the world existed.
I don't see any problem here. We just must be careful not to assume that the Creation consumes God. That is, He existed just fine before the Creation, and just because He created does not mean His existence has been damaged somehow.
One must wonder if there really is such a thing as love. I am almost certain that if we would describe it or image it somehow, it would be a variety of loves, each suited to every man's fancy. We cannot understand God, FK. We can only speak of God in human terms thinking of Christ.
I don't wonder about it at all, of course there is love. It is irrelevant that we can't know it fully. This is the problem with the all or nothing approach. One is always left with NOTHING. For some reason some people are dissatisfied with "adequate and good per God's will". They want it all or they want nothing to do with it. Their loss. But it also leads to bad theology, a theology without a base. I do not understand why these people shun true knowledge only because it is not exhaustive.
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.