Posted on 01/27/2008 7:56:14 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
On that we can certainly agree. :)
Are you comparing a dog getting a yummy treat to our everlasting life? We really do have completely different theologies, sir. And a completely different understanding of God.
LOL! No. I am arguing against the proposition put forth by Kosta that we can either understand everything of God, or virtually nothing of Him at all. I was saying that just as a dog can have SOME real understanding, although it is not exhaustive, so too can humans have SOME understanding of God that is perfectly true, although not exhaustive. That's it. :) I would actually expect you to agree with me on this.
I am distinguishing between God requiring evil in order to fulfill His plan as He wants it, and God requiring evil because He is lacking of something. I think the latter was being asserted as a Reformed belief and so I objected to it.
That is why the elimination of the Magisterium from interpretation is so wrong. Calvin interpreted one way, Luther another, Mary Baker Eddy yet another and so on. All of them different and all of them to one extent or another, wrong.
The ultimate test is always scripture of course. If teachings are not consistent with scripture, as so many from the Magisterium are not, then we can know they are wrong. Calvin and Luther were obviously very close in the great majority of their interpretations. They had in common a desire to follow the scriptures, so they were led in the same direction.
AMEN, AG. Excellent post, and thanks for all the wonderful scriptures. :)
Really? Then why does Jesus spent most of the Gospels instructing us on what to do and what not to do?
Every word of scripture is God's revelation to us. They are His tools to accomplish His preordained plan. For example, God ordains that His elect persevere. Now, He COULD just zap all believers with that knowledge and how to do it magically, or, He can reveal it to us in scripture, which is what He did. But here we have to remember that all the words of the Bible are completely meaningless UNLESS salvational grace has become effective. The scriptures lead to faith, but without salvational grace FIRST the scriptures are nothing to that person.
[Re: Rom. 11:22-24] Paul is saying that it is possible to lose one’s salvation and that it is possible to be lost and then to regain one’s salvation.
No he's not. This passage has to do with the Gentiles and the nation of Jews. All the "you's" are groups of people in general, not so much individuals. In all of his writings, Paul certainly acknowledges that true believers fall away for a time, but I don't know where he ever says that their true salvation is ever lost. In fact, he never says that. It's not Biblical. The crux is over whether a true believer can fall away permanently. The Bible says no, and if that was possible it would make God a liar:
Phil 1:6 : ... being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.
Does God's good work get accomplished EVERY time or only SOMETIMES?
FK: ***Apples and oranges. You can’t compare when the starting positions were so opposite.***
They started without sin and they disobeyed - which is the first definition of sin in the OT - disobedience to God.
Like I said, we don't start without sin, we start totally depraved. Huge difference. Theoretically, Adam and Eve had a meaningful choice. We do not.
When and where did any of us claim that the Church hierarchy is uncorrupted. Bernard Law comes to mind.
I was talking about the group, as I think Kosta was, not the individual. As I understand it, your group as a whole teaches infallibly according to itself (Latin, not Orthodox). Kosta said, in essence, IMO, that at the very beginning "the group" was not really all that together on correct doctrine, beliefs, etc. I was asking when and how did that change.
***I am arguing against the proposition put forth by Kosta that we can either understand everything of God, or virtually nothing of Him at all. I was saying that just as a dog can have SOME real understanding, although it is not exhaustive, so too can humans have SOME understanding of God that is perfectly true, although not exhaustive.***
I would agree with both of you to the extent that we have a better understanding of God than a dog would of us; yet we only can understand what we as humans CAN understand of the infinite Creator which is extremely little.
***I am distinguishing between God requiring evil in order to fulfill His plan as He wants it, and God requiring evil because He is lacking of something. I think the latter was being asserted as a Reformed belief and so I objected to it.***
I don’t think that either of us considered God to be lacking of anything. We simply state that the Reformed God requires evil and that is what we reject. God using evil is not Christian.
***The ultimate test is always scripture of course. If teachings are not consistent with scripture, as so many from the Magisterium are not, then we can know they are wrong.***
Concentrating on certain verses and ignoring others always leads to differing theologies.
As well, different people with different mindsets can look at the same verse and come up with different interpretations.
***Calvin and Luther were obviously very close in the great majority of their interpretations. They had in common a desire to follow the scriptures, so they were led in the same direction.***
Calvin and Luther developed incompatible theologies from each other. Not the same direction at all.
Thank you oh so very much for your encouragements, dear brother in Christ!
***Every word of scripture is God’s revelation to us.***
As written by men.
***They are His tools to accomplish His preordained plan. For example, God ordains that His elect persevere. Now, He COULD just zap all believers with that knowledge and how to do it magically, or, He can reveal it to us in scripture, which is what He did. ***
Plan? God is outside time. He is everywhere and everywhen. I thought that all Reformed believers are zapped. What is this about Scripture? What if a Reformed elect didn’t hear any Scripture?
Acts 2:
38
Peter (said) to them, “Repent and be baptized, 7 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.
Scripture itself doesn’t emphasize Scripture. It emphasizes teaching and tradition. Repent and be baptized and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
***Paul certainly acknowledges that true believers fall away for a time, but I don’t know where he ever says that their true salvation is ever lost. In fact, he never says that. It’s not Biblical.***
1 John 2:
1 John
Chapter 2
1
My children, 1 I am writing this to you so that you may not commit sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous one.
2
He is expiation for our sins, and not for our sins only but for those of the whole world.
3
The way we may be sure 2 that we know him is to keep his command ments.
4
Whoever says, “I know him,” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
5
But whoever keeps his word, the love of God is truly perfected in him. This is the way we may know that we are in union with him:
6
whoever claims to abide in him ought to live (just) as he lived.
You must keep the Commandments of Jesus or you are not saved.
Heb 10:
26
14 If we sin deliberately after receiving knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains sacrifice for sins
27
but a fearful prospect of judgment and a flaming fire that is going to consume the adversaries.
Salvation is conditional. Believers can fall away.
36
You need endurance to do the will of God and receive what he has promised.
37
“For, after just a brief moment, 17 he who is to come shall come; he shall not delay.
38
But my just one shall live by faith, and if he draws back I take no pleasure in him.”
A just one (ie believer) can ‘draw back’ and therefore not be saved.
2 Peter 2:
20
For if they, having escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of (our) Lord and savior Jesus Christ, again become entangled and overcome by them, their last condition is worse than their first.
21
For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment handed down 11 to them.
It is possible for believers to fall away.
Thus Calvin is refuted in many places and TULIP petals are falling.
***I was talking about the group, as I think Kosta was, not the individual. As I understand it, your group as a whole teaches infallibly according to itself (Latin, not Orthodox). Kosta said, in essence, IMO, that at the very beginning “the group” was not really all that together on correct doctrine, beliefs, etc. I was asking when and how did that change.***
The Church agreed on a consensus; sometimes it took a while to achieve, yet the Church teaches infallibly utilizing fallible men. Of course there were differences at the beginning; as our understanding of Christianity developed, the great differences were labelled as heresy and the minor differences were settled over time.
I would agree with both of you to the extent that we have a better understanding of God than a dog would of us; yet we only can understand what we as humans CAN understand of the infinite Creator which is extremely little.
Yes, and I hope you would agree that even though what we understand might be very little as compared to all there IS to know, it is nevertheless significant AND meaningful. This is the split between me and those who say God is "unknowable".
Then the Bible isn't Christian either :) For example:
Gen 50:15-20 : 15 When Joseph's brothers saw that their father was dead, they said, "What if Joseph holds a grudge against us and pays us back for all the wrongs we did to him?" 16 So they sent word to Joseph, saying, "Your father left these instructions before he died: 17'This is what you are to say to Joseph: I ask you to forgive your brothers the sins and the wrongs they committed in treating you so badly.' Now please forgive the sins of the servants of the God of your father." When their message came to him, Joseph wept. 18 His brothers then came and threw themselves down before him. "We are your slaves," they said. 19 But Joseph said to them, "Don't be afraid. Am I in the place of God? 20 You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives.
Matt 10:34-36 : 34 "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn "'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law— 36 a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'
Matt 13:24-30 : 24 Jesus told them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25 But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. 26 When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared. 27 "The owner's servants came to him and said, 'Sir, didn't you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?' 28 "'An enemy did this,' he replied. "The servants asked him, 'Do you want us to go and pull them up?' 29 "'No,' he answered, 'because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.'"
Matt 13:36-43 : 36 Then he left the crowd and went into the house. His disciples came to him and said, "Explain to us the parable of the weeds in the field." 37 He answered, "The one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man. 38 The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one, 39 and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are angels. 40 "As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. 41 The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. 42 They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.
There are lots of examples. The Bible is clear that God uses the evil of others to accomplish His purposes. Look to the entire story of the crucifixion or prophecy in general. Was that all by accident? I don't think so.
***Gen 50:15-20 : 15 ***
There was no evil actually done.
***Matt 10:34-36 : 34***
There was no evil actually done.
***Matt 13:24-30 : 24 ***
There was no evil actually done.
***Matt 13:36-43***
There is Judgement on the deeds of the individuals.\
***There are lots of examples. The Bible is clear that God uses the evil of others to accomplish His purposes.***
God rues the performance of evil
***Look to the entire story of the crucifixion or prophecy in general. ***
Are you calling the Crucifixion evil?
Thank you so much for sharing your insights and especially thank you for those beautiful Scriptures!
God is not subject to time, but He obviously chooses to work within it as far as our experience is concerned. Jesus is not still on the cross today, is He? :) ............ God does give saving grace to all of His elect, but faith is (usually) developed. I did not wake up one day and from nothing say "Eureka, now I believe". I came to belief through the gradual understanding of the basics of God's word. God's grace is what made it possible for me to understand. And, it was preordained that I would understand, even though I had no idea about it at the time.
If a Reformed elect never saw scripture then he would have been taught orally. No violation of Reformed principles there. There is also precedence for the "Paul-method", but I have not heard of too many cases. :) If a Reformed elect never HEARD any scripture, then it would take some special action by God. I'm not sure how one could possibly hold to Reformed principles without scripture. They are one.
Scripture itself doesn’t emphasize Scripture. It emphasizes teaching and tradition. Repent and be baptized and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Scripture emphasizes the word of God all over the place and Jesus certainly emphasized scriptures. We've already posted the quotes. And, it is certainly true that those who KNOWINGLY repent will receive the Holy Spirit. A false repentance does not result in salvation any more than a false confession results in absolution.
1 John Chapter 2 - 1 My children, 1 I am writing this to you so that you may not commit sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous one. 2 He is expiation for our sins, and not for our sins only but for those of the whole world. 3 The way we may be sure 2 that we know him is to keep his command ments. 4 Whoever says, “I know him,” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5 But whoever keeps his word, the love of God is truly perfected in him. This is the way we may know that we are in union with him: 6 whoever claims to abide in him ought to live (just) as he lived.
You must keep the Commandments of Jesus or you are not saved.
The passage says that we can be sure of our salvation by whether we obey Him. That is true. It says nothing about earning anything with deeds. Faith comes first, then to be sure it is real, look at deeds. This is a very Reformed passage. :)
[On Heb 10:26-27] Salvation is conditional. Believers can fall away.
No, this proposes a hypothetical. IF a true believer apostatizes then he is lost for good. That is true because Christ only died once. It does not say this is possible since that would mean other scripture, especially from Christ, would be a lie. Also notice that if we read it your way there is NO PROVISION for forgiveness and absolution for apostasy. That would go against your theology.
[On Heb 10:36-38] A just one (ie believer) can ‘draw back’ and therefore not be saved.
No, this passage confirms what I said earlier. Paul is saying in verse 39 that we are not like that "impossible hypothetical that I just gave to you".
[On 2 Peter 2:20-21] It is possible for believers to fall away.
Nope. Anyone can mouth the words, and even change his behavior a little bit. That does not make him a true believer. I think that's where our problem is. What is a true believer? I think our respective answers would be dramatically different.
Thus Calvin is refuted in many places and TULIP petals are falling.
Nope again. Calvin and the TULIP are just fine. :)
There was no evil actually done.
Sure there was, the brothers threw Joseph down a well and sold him into slavery. Joseph says that God used that for good.
FK: ***Matt 10:34-36 ***
There was no evil actually done.
Sure there was, and WILL BE. You don't think evil happens when brother is purposely set against brother?
FK: ***Matt 13:24-30 ***
There was no evil actually done.
IT'S A PARABLE and Jesus specifically says "this is what the Kingdom of Heaven is like".
FK: ***There are lots of examples. The Bible is clear that God uses the evil of others to accomplish His purposes.***
God rues the performance of evil.
Sure, on one level. I'm sure He rued the crucifixion itself, but He still made it happen by using the evil of others. We know for certain it was the Father's will from Jesus' prayer.
FK: ***Look to the entire story of the crucifixion or prophecy in general. ***
Are you calling the Crucifixion evil?
No, I'm saying look at all the evil it took for the whole thing to happen. There was treachery, lying, false trials, mockery, the knowing punishment, torture and murder of an innocent man, etc. The list goes on and on. Yet, it was no accident. God was in control of the whole thing, using all of these evils, the whole time.
Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!
What original meaning, FK? Where do you find the words "inspired" in the Bible? Your NIV version, just like the NAB version, find "inspired" in many places where the original text doesn't. In fact, there simply isn't any, with one exception.
This particular exception is in 2 Tim 3:16, QeopneumatoV (Theopneumatos), which is purely a Pauline construct. So, what "original" meaning are you talking about?
It doesn't say anything about being "infallible," or being written by God. It simply means that all scripture is spirited, motivated, given life, by God. In other words, God is the cause but not the doer.
But isn't everything in this world Theopneumatos?!? The early Christians certanly believed it, we believe it, and reaffirm that belief every Sunday in our Creed:
According to the Reformed theology, we could say the same thing about evil, as well as human beings. After all, Adam was Theopneumatos, and he was anything but perfect. And the Fall in the Garden of Eden was also Theopneumatos, as was the fall of the satan and other angelic hosts.
There is no "perfection" in the product of that which is Theopneumatos. Your theology maintains that it is all part of God's perfect "plan," but if there is anything we learn from the Bible it is that which is Theopneumatos is anything but perfect by definition.
Such corruption is a pruely Potestant innovation, for obvious reasons. It is also a develish deception, because it implies that, being Theopneumatos, the evil itself is perfect and infallible.
The deceptive part of which stfassisi talks about always is in the fact that so many don't see it when it is glaringly obvious.
Subjective judgment, FK, is no proof of anything. What makes you objectively right and their side objectively wrong? You cannot objectively defend your position as being inherently "right" just as you cannot objectively dismiss theirs as being inherently "wrong."
By your reasoning all I would have to do to destroy Orthodoxy would be to adopt the same claims, but add that it is fine to have sex with small children
May I ask you why do you accept the OT? It doesn't teach sex with little children, but it certainly has its share of cruelty, slavery, massacres, murdering children, and a host of other things we find morally reprehensible.
You are telling me that if the OT said it was OK to have sex with little children you would accept that? That takes us back to the Exodus and God killing all the Egyptian firstborn as something that was "just?" Doesn't the OT imply that massacres are "just" if they are Theopneumatos (God-breathed)?!?
In which case, how does one know for sure that it is? Of course, every side "justifies" its atrocities by a subjective belief that their God is true and that they are providentially guided to destroy the enemies of their God.
But you could not say the same thing about Orthodoxy because Orthodoxy never taught sex with small children. You could invent such a deviation from Orthodoxy, but that would not be Orthodoxy.
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.