Posted on 01/27/2008 7:56:14 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
January 25, 2008
ESV Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
In recent days I have spent time in Lima and Sullana Peru and Mexico City and I have discovered that people by nature are the same. Man has a heart that is inclined to selfishness and idolatry. Sin abounds in the remotest parts of the land because the heart is desperately wicked. Thousands bow before statues of Mary and pray to her hoping for answers. I have seen these people stare hopelessly at Mary icons, Jesus icons, and a host of dead saints who will do nothing for them. I have talked with people who pray to the pope and say that they love him. I talked with one lady who said that she knew that Jesus was the Savior, but she loved the pope. Thousands bow before Santa Muerte (holy death angel) in hopes that she will do whatever they ask her. I have seen people bring money, burning cigarettes, beer, whiskey, chocolate, plants, and flowers to Santa Muerte in hopes of her answers. I have seen these people bowing on their knees on the concrete in the middle of public places to worship their idol. Millions of people come into the Basilica in Mexico City and pay their money, confess their sins, and stare hopelessly at relics in hope that their sins will be pardoned. In America countless thousands are chained to baseball games, football games, material possessions, and whatever else their heart of idols can produce to worship.
My heart has broken in these last weeks because the God of heaven is not honored as he ought to be honored. People worship the things that are created rather than worshiping the Creator. God has been gracious to all mankind and yet mankind has hardened their hearts against a loving God. God brings the rain on the just and unjust. God brings the beautiful sunrises and sunsets upon the just and unjust. God gives good gifts unto all and above all things he has given his Son that those who would believe in him would be saved. However, man has taken the good things of God and perverted them unto idols and turned their attention away from God. I get a feel for Jesus as he overlooked Jerusalem or Paul as he beseeched for God to save Israel. When you accept the reality of the truth of the glory of God is breaks your heart that people would turn away from the great and awesome God of heaven to serve lesser things. Moses was outraged by the golden calf, the prophets passionately preached against idolatry, Jesus was angered that the temple was changed in an idolatrous business, and Paul preached to the idolaters of Mars Hill by telling them of the unknown God.
I arrived back at home wondering how I should respond to all the idolatry that I have beheld in these last three weeks. I wondered how our church here in the states should respond to all of the idolatry in the world. What are the options? First, I suppose we could sit around and hope that people chose to get their life together and stop being idolaters. However, I do not know how that could ever happen apart from them hearing the truth. Second, I suppose we could spend a lifetime studying cultural issues and customs in hope that we could somehow learn to relate to the people of other countries. However, the bible is quite clear that all men are the same. Men are dead in sin, shaped in iniquity, and by nature are the enemies of God. Thirdly, we could pay other people or other agencies to go and do a work for us while we remain comfortably in the states. However, there is no way to insure that there will be doctrinal accuracy or integrity. If we only pay other people to take the gospel we will miss out on all of the benefits of being obedient to the mission of God. Lastly, we could seek where God would have us to do a lasting work and then invest our lives there for the glory of God. The gospel has the power to raise the dead in any culture and we must be willing to take the gospel wherever God would have us take it. It is for sure that our church cannot go to every country and reach every people group, so we must determine where God would have us work and seek to be obedient wherever that is.
It seems that some doors are opening in the Spanish speaking countries below us and perhaps God is beginning to reveal where we are to work. There are some options for work to be partnered with in Peru and there could be a couple of options in Mexico. The need is greater than I can express upon this paper for a biblical gospel to be proclaimed in Peru and Mexico. Oh, that God would glorify his great name in Peru and Mexico by using a small little church in a town that does not exist to proclaim his great gospel amongst a people who desperately need the truth.
I give thanks to the LORD for allowing me the privilege of going to these countries and broadening my horizons. The things that I have seen will be forever engraved upon my heart. I will long remember the pastors that I spent time with in Peru and I will never forget Adolfo who translated for me in Mexico. I will relish the time that I spent with Paul Washer and the others. When I think of church I will forever remember being on top of that mountain in Sullana at that church which had no electricity and no roof. I am convinced that heaven was looking down on that little church on top of that mountain and very few people on earth even know that it exist. Oh, God I pray that the things of this world will continue to grow dim and that God’s people will be caught up in his glorious presence.
Because of the truth: Pastor: J. Randall Easter II Timothy 2:19 "Our God is in heaven and does whatever He pleases."(Ps. 115:3) "He predestined us according to the good pleasure of His will."(Eph. 1:5) Those who have been saved have been saved for His glory and they are being made holy for this is the will of God. Are you being made holy? Spurgeon says, "If your religion does not make you holy it will damn you to hell."
FK: What??? Jesus said the scriptures testify about Him. Jesus says He wants us to love Him. We must KNOW who we love. The scriptures tell us who Christ IS. How can this be so difficult?
What does that have to do with everyone's "job" not being to know the scriptures? Christ left His Church to the Apostles to tend to the flock, knowing fully well that private interpretations lead to error, and Protestantism is a living proof of that.
There is solid agreement about God's word among Bible-believing Christians from many different denominations. We may disagree on some interpretations here or there, but nothing that prevents solid agreement on those core issues
Sure there is, except they all "extract" different meanings from it, sufficiently different to create thousands of denominations that disagree on a variety of fundamental biblical issues, such as the free will, gays, ordination of women, Eucharist, even the Holy Trinity!
The amalgam of the so-called "Bible-believing" Christians includes people like LDS. Why, FK, all who call themselves Christians are Bible-believing! They all base their belief on the Bible. :)
So what? Is Orthodoxy lessened in your mind because there are hundreds of millions of us out here that disagree with you?
The Bible tells us that Jesus called for unity and not disunity. He established an Apostolic Church, not thousands of "churches." He left the faith in the hands of the Apostles in that Church; He did not distribute copies of the Bible for everyone to read.
Obviously He never told everyone should read the Bible, He called for unity of faith, not thousands of personal interpretations of it, in the one Church He left to the Apostles.
Obviously He never told everyone should read the Bible, He called for unity of faith, not thousands of personal interpretations of it, in the one Church He left to the Apostles.
Indeed!Dear Brother!
Not only do they interpret the Bible outside of the Church ,they have the audacity to TRY and use the Bible to attack the apostolic Church ,the Sacraments and even Our Blessed Mother, thus elevating themselves above those who gave them Bible canon and all those who were martyerd for the faith.
This is the work of the devil-to break unity,tear asunder..
Hope all is well with you,Dear Kosta.
I have been spending more time in prayer and attending Adoration these days rather than posting much on FR.
I think it's certainly more fruitful and much needed.
I wish you a Blessed day!
I used the term "God-breathed" and you noted the verse. You have been showed many verses about the truth and power of God's word, but I'm not sure it would do any good to list them again since I think you would distinguish that we disagree on what WAS original, and we disagree on whether most of the NT is a Christian authority. :)
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.
So when Jesus said that He did not come to change one jot or tittle, that meant He supported error and mistake?
But isn't everything in this world Theopneumatos?!?
Nice try, but No. :) The rest of the world has been meaningfully corrupted. The Bible has not:
Matt 24:35 : Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.
1 John 2:17 : The world and its desires pass away, but the man who does the will of God lives forever.
The will of God for us has been revealed to us in the entirety of the scriptures. You, and the Orthodox Church since it believes that the original writings were subject to human error, describe the scriptures as if they were part of "the world". Isn't that correct?
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.
Then for you there can be nothing that intrinsically separates the Bible from any other book "of the world".
Given your views of scriptures and historicity I don't think there is any objective argument you would accept. :)
FK: 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?
Because Jesus did and the Holy Spirit put it into my heart to accept it. There may even be one or two other Christians on the planet who might agree with that. :)
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.
God does not teach us in general to do any of those things either. God specifically ordered certain people to commit massacres at specific times. He does not say that we should do the same "whenever". Other men are not ours to do with as we please, but it's different with God.
You are telling me that if the OT said it was OK to have sex with little children you would accept that?
Yes, either for them then or for me now if it remained into the New Covenant. However, the OT teaches against doing that. I ACCEPT God's word. I do not hold it up to needing to pass my test of what I think is right and wrong. If I did that, I would define my own God instead of God defining me.
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)?!?
I don't think it implies it at all, it says it plainly. :) Of course God's wrath is just. Who are we to complain about it? God-breathed means something much more than someone's best guess at an interpretation.
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.
Well, I certainly do not feel free to go out and kill someone because I had an inkling that God might have wanted me to do it. From the Biblical descriptions of God's direct contacts with individuals, I get the strong idea that if something like that actually happened to me, I would know it. :) God contacts me every day, but not like that.
FK: What??? Jesus said the scriptures testify about Him. Jesus says He wants us to love Him. We must KNOW who we love. The scriptures tell us who Christ IS. How can this be so difficult?
Kosta: What does that have to do with everyone's "job" not being to know the scriptures? Christ left His Church to the Apostles to tend to the flock, knowing fully well that private interpretations lead to error, and Protestantism is a living proof of that.
If you believe it is committed unto you to love God, then congratulations, it is your "job" to know the scriptures. Jesus said the scriptures testify about Him, they help us KNOW Him. We cannot love whom we do not know. Do you believe that your extra-Biblical tradition is sufficient by itself to know God? For example, is it enough to know God through Mariology?
But wait, I think you have said that the only way to know God is through, in essence, the lines from Jesus' mouth in the Bible, however, that's STILL in the Bible. Isn't it your "job" to at least know those lines even if you "throw the rest of it out?"
There is solid agreement about God's word among Bible-believing Christians from many different denominations. We may disagree on some interpretations here or there, but nothing that prevents solid agreement on those core issues.
Sure there is, except they all "extract" different meanings from it, sufficiently different to create thousands of denominations that disagree on a variety of fundamental biblical issues, such as the free will, gays, ordination of women, Eucharist, even the Holy Trinity!
One can be an Arminian and be a Bible-believing Christian easily, but all those others you listed are clearly NOT Bible-believing Christians.
The amalgam of the so-called "Bible-believing" Christians includes people like LDS.
No they are not, they have created their own Bible. You have been interacting with Bible-beliving Christians of different faiths, even the non-Reformed, for years. If you don't think you can distinguish between all of us and a group like the Mormons, then it doesn't look like you're paying very close attention. :)
Why, FK, all who call themselves Christians are Bible-believing! They all base their belief on the Bible. :)
No, just as Jesus says, just mouthing the words by itself doesn't count ("Lord, Lord"). You know I am a Reformer. You also know that Alamo-Girl is not (neither would she call herself an Arminian I'll wager). Nevertheless, I have not a doubt but that she is a true Bible-believing Christian because I have read her postings and know one when I see one. I would NEVER confuse her with an LDS or any of the other groups you mentioned. :)
The Bible tells us that Jesus called for unity and not disunity.
That's too broad a brush:
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.'
In addition, think of the disagreement between Paul and Barnabas in Acts 15. They split and went their separate ways, and as a result MORE churches were founded. Accident? I don't think so.
Sure there is only one truth, and God wants all believers headed toward that truth, but that doesn't mean that by His design He doesn't have different paths for us to get there.
He established an Apostolic Church, not thousands of "churches."
He established HIS CHURCH, not one church of men lording its power over other Christians.
He left the faith in the hands of the Apostles in that Church; ...
He left the faith in the hands of others to carry on, but as to the faith itself, He left THAT in HIS OWN HANDS, He did not transfer it to fallible men to make whatever of it they wanted by adding to what God had made. That would defeat the whole thing. We saw how well it worked out in the OT when God allowed power to be held by human kings. For some reason, men decided that this time it would be different. Perhaps it was that the deciders also happened to be the kings! :)
Obviously He never told everyone should read the Bible.
Oh, obviously. I'm sure in Christ's omniscience He thought "Yeah, some guys are gonna make this thing up to add to the other junk some dead guys made up, but NAW, people shouldn't read it. They'll have extra-scriptural Tradition. They'll have oral teachings which of course are more reliable and better than anything written down way back then. Good enough. Reading will just confuse their minds." I'm sure that was it. :)
Let me know if you wish to use any of the ‘head against brick wall’ giffs.
Hundreds? Even the Apostles didn't recognize Him. And even at the Pentecost, some of His closest disciples still doubted Him!
None of the Apostles, save for one were there when He died. Who verified that He was dead? A Roman soldier who became a convert, or who was a convert? Or who was bribed? Besides, dead people don't bleed.
All this doubt shows that nothing is certain and that we accept Christ's Incarnation, Death and Resurrection on blind faith.
The only witness we have are the Gospels and they have a vested interest. Besides, in order for them to be "convincing" one already must already be convicted that they are true! What proof is that?
However, we do know from variety of sources without the vested interest that something profound happened after the Pentecost, and that the Apostles who were scared and doubtful, became fearless advocates of Christ even unto death.
They all became believers.
It wasn't for the miracles He performed, it wasn't for what He taught, it wasn't even for Him appearing among them afterwords (cf Mat 28:17), even of sending them the Spirit (cf John 2:22) before the Pentecost (how could some of the eleven still doubt Him, according to Matthew, if they received the Spirit, according to John?!? John's statement also contradicts Acts 1 (v. 5), where Jesus promises the disciples that He will send them the Spirit in a few days if they already received the Spirit according to John?!?).
There is plenty of contradictory evidence here as to what happened and when, but something happened at the Pentecost that made all of the eleven and the rest of the people present into believers. There was no understanding involved, just blind faith, just as the New Testament tells us happened to Paul on the way to Damascus.
There were no hundreds of people witnessing His Resurrection for sure. The Gospels don't even agree how many women witnessed the empty tomb. No one has seen Him get up from where He was laid and come back to life. There is simply no evidence even in the Gospels to that. Christ Resurrected is a Christian belief based on pure faith, period.
The Apostles never taught that dunking had anything to do with salvation or being of the elect
O really? How about
And from Acts we learn that Peter said that those who are baptized shall receive the Spirit. In Greek, baptiso means "to dunk."
FK: I think it IS, but we do not believe what you have said above, so it doesn't apply to us. Somehow, I do not see your future holding a bare bones basic understanding of Reformed theology. :)
How is what I said above not what you believe? Namely 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?"
Okay, I will grant that Joseph said that God used evil to accomplish good. But if we go from the OT to the New, Jesus speaks of Judgement and punishment for the evils that men do, not the doing of evil for good purposes.
The Crucifixion would have happened with or without lies, deceit, false trials etc. Did they not happen on a fairly regular basis anyway (I mean lies, deceit, false trials)?
LOL! :) I've seen lots of them and they ARE great. I will remember your kind offer. Thanks much. :)
Sure.
Thanks for your kind reply.
Learning and understanding are two different things, FK. Experimental psychology has proven that long time ago; an organism does not require understanding to learn.
To "understand" involves grasping of the meaning, comprehension.
To "learn" involves acquiring a skill. Thus, learning and understanding ( comprehending) is not mutually exclusive or necessarily mutually interdependent, as is the case with need and want.
And just from personal experience our dog treats every individual family member differently, based on his perceived station for us. I am the "king", etc. That HAS to involve some understanding.
And ants know who the queen is, FK, but I doubt they "understand" why.
***To “understand” involves grasping of the meaning, comprehension.
To “learn” involves acquiring a skill. Thus, learning and understanding ( comprehending) is not mutually exclusive or necessarily mutually interdependent, as is the case with need and want.***
I doubt that it is a significant step from frogmarching the uncomprehending to, well, the reduction of the human to the animal. Regardless of the mechanism, it still involves the elimination of the understanding and the free will of understanding and agreeing to the process or goal.
Either mankind willingly chooses the love of God and eternal life or else he does not. Scripture consistently describes the path of salvation for the willing - it involves choice and action from choice. It does not address those in the armchair who get plucked via an uncomprehensible fashion for unknown reasons to an undeserved eternal reward.
God gave us reason for a reason. If He didn't want us to choose, why would He give us choices? Nowehere does the Bible speak of God attaching divine tractor beams to our foreheads and leading us around against our will.
Hundreds? Even the Apostles didn't recognize Him. And even at the Pentecost, some of His closest disciples still doubted Him! "When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted" [Mat 28:17 NIV]
I was referring to this passage:
1 Cor 15:3-8 : 3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
I would imagine that by the time Paul wrote this, many of those 500 had done some talking. :) The brothers DID recognize Him, just as the Apostles did in the upper room.
None of the Apostles, save for one were there when He died. Who verified that He was dead? A Roman soldier who became a convert, or who was a convert? Or who was bribed? Besides, dead people don't bleed.
So, you question whether Jesus was objectively dead according to scripture based on these flimsy hypotheticals? :) How about what if a space alien sustained His body until the crowds went away so Jesus could then escape? Come on, Kosta. :) We have to be reasonable here. The Romans had an IMAGE to maintain. If you went up, you didn't come down alive. NO ONE DID. We have this:
Mark 15:42-45 : 42 It was Preparation Day (that is, the day before the Sabbath). So as evening approached, 43 Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Council, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus' body. 44 Pilate was surprised to hear that he was already dead. Summoning the centurion, he asked him if Jesus had already died. 45 When he learned from the centurion that it was so, he gave the body to Joseph.
From here you have to wholly invent that the centurion was lying or otherwise covering for Christ. There is ZERO evidence of this. He would have been executed for such a lie immediately. Further, the guards at the tomb would have also been executed for failing their duties to protect against the thing you are talking about. It didn't happen. It wasn't a fake. There IS evidence in scripture.
All this doubt shows that nothing is certain and that we accept Christ's Incarnation, Death and Resurrection on blind faith.
I must say that I have never seen an individual so motivated and driven to believe in something for NO GOOD REASON. :) There is NO objective doubt. These Romans were not pansies, their rep was on the line. Neither were the Jews who were also motivated to prove all of this a lie. No, if this was a scam it would have been found out, but it wasn't. Too many people saw Him resurrected with their own eyes and lived MANY years to testify about it, as Paul tells us.
The only witness we have are the Gospels and they have a vested interest.
I thought the Gospels are the only way for you to know God. If even they are now suspect, then that wouldn't be good. :)
Besides, in order for them to be "convincing" one already must already be convicted that they are true! What proof is that?
I'm not talking about you, but to a non-believer it is none. The Bible says that its own words will be nonsense to the lost, all logic and sense notwithstanding. To a believer, though, the Bible fits like a glove, consistent in both history and reason.
It wasn't for the miracles He performed, it wasn't for what He taught, it wasn't even for Him appearing among them afterwords (cf Mat 28:17), even of sending them the Spirit (cf John 2:22) before the Pentecost (how could some of the eleven still doubt Him, according to Matthew, if they received the Spirit, according to John?!?
My version just says "after", and Strong's backs that up as an acceptable definition. Your interpretation is not mandated at all. "At some point" after the resurrection they believed fully. True.
There was no understanding involved [at Pentecost], just blind faith, just as the New Testament tells us happened to Paul on the way to Damascus.
What? :) Is that really a comparison you want to make? Paul's eyes were blind, but his faith could NOT have been more based in reality. He experienced a real zapping, first hand, for real. Paul is the LAST person who would ever say that his FAITH was blind. He says the opposite, that his faith was DIRECTLY from Christ. It was an extremely close, PERSONAL, one-on-one relationship in truth. Amen.
FK: The Apostles never taught that dunking had anything to do with salvation or being of the elect.
O really? How about "He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved" [Mark 16:16 NIV]
That is like saying: "He who has believed and has been baptized and has balanced his checkbook shall be saved". We can see this from within the very verse you quote:
Mark 16:16 : Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
Obviously there is a GLARING omission here. It doesn't say that the unbaptized are condemned, just that those who don't believe are condemned. That was no accident. Belief is salvation, baptism is an obedience to God. Different category altogether.
And from Acts we learn that Peter said that those who are baptized shall receive the Spirit. In Greek, baptiso means "to dunk."
Those who are baptized of the Spirit shall receive the Spirit. From the same book this is Jesus speaking:
Acts 1:5 : For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit."
Peter also talked about repentance in your verse. THAT is a necessary element of faith, water baptism isn't.
Kosta: 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!
FK: I think it IS, but we do not believe what you have said above, so it doesn't apply to us. Somehow, I do not see your future holding a bare bones basic understanding of Reformed theology. :)
Kosta: How is what I said above not what you believe? Namely 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?"
It is not what we believe because "calling on the name of the Lord" MUST be in TRUE faith. The "Lord, Lord" crowd "calls" on the name of the Lord, but they are lost. True faith takes more than that. I know there's a verse somewhere that talks about those who call are saved, but in the context of the whole Bible, that must be truly calling to the Lord in true faith. Now, if you gave us credit ahead of time for our calling on the name of the Lord to be in true faith, then this whining by me does not apply. LOL!
The other problem is with the "no matter what we do" part. Your side uses this to accuse us of taking license to live lives of sin after belief because it doesn't matter. It DOES MATTER. I have quoted your side the scripture saying WHY it matters. Paul was all over this. Our doctrine called "Perseverance of the Saints" says that while our post-salvation sins won't cause us to forfeit our salvations, God is very active in the lives of His children. He has even made promises concerning them (Phil. 1:6). God will never allow His children to sin to whatever level it is that WOULD cause a loss of salvation. It IS a hypothetical possibility, HOWEVER, God's promises trump that possibility. Therefore, it is inaccurate to say that we have assurance in our own minds, "no matter what we do". There is NO license to sin, and our leaders do NOT teach that there is. We teach what Paul taught, i.e. BY NO MEANS. :)
Yes, that's true. I don't think at all that Joseph's brothers were "rewarded" for the evil that they did. God just used it. In addition, we have to remember that your side and mine have a fundamental disagreement on whether there is a such judgment solely for "reward" in Heaven. My understanding is that Apostolics believe there is only one subject of judgment, Heaven or hell. We believe there is another that is apart from that, to determine our rewards in Heaven based on our works.
The Crucifixion would have happened with or without lies, deceit, false trials etc. Did they not happen on a fairly regular basis anyway (I mean lies, deceit, false trials)?
WHAT??? :) Tell me how Jesus could have been legitimately tried and convicted of [name your crime] and then warranted the ultimate death penalty. How could that have POSSIBLY happened?
I am sure that the Romans DID put real live murderers, etc., to death for their crimes, and I also have no problem believing that some were put to death wrongfully. That's irrelevant. The point is that in Jesus' case virtually EVERY rule on the books was broken. That took an incredible amount of sin that could not have been coincidental. Jesus prayed for the cup to be taken away while still a free man, before any of this started. God's WILL clearly was for all of it to proceed as it did. It HAD to, for this was the MOST innocent man who ever lived! :)
Thank you so very much for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!
***The Crucifixion would have happened with or without lies, deceit, false trials etc. Did they not happen on a fairly regular basis anyway (I mean lies, deceit, false trials)?
WHAT??? :) Tell me how Jesus could have been legitimately tried and convicted of [name your crime] and then warranted the ultimate death penalty. How could that have POSSIBLY happened? ***
http://www.writing.com/main/view_item/item_id/1115584 says that:
“So, why would Pontius Pilate, who presided at the trial of Jesus, find him not guilty of a crime meriting death, yet hand him over to the Jews for crucifixion? Pilate realized that, to restore and maintain the political and religious stability of Judea, Jesus had to be executed. But, if a Roman prefect sentenced Jesus to death, Jesus would become a martyr, increasing the feelings of injustice and fueling the flames of revolution. Pilate needed Jesus to be crucified by his own people. In this manner, Jesus would still serve as an example of the consequences of questioning Roman authority without direct Roman involvement in his death — in fact it would be Pilate, the Roman prefect, who had recommended that Jesus be freed. Thus, Pilate demonstrated his shrewdness as well as his cruelty. A rabble-rouser was put to death and Roman hands were clean of the incident.”
The background leading up to this is interesting, as well.
***Jesus prayed for the cup to be taken away while still a free man, before any of this started. God’s WILL clearly was for all of it to proceed as it did. It HAD to, for this was the MOST innocent man who ever lived! :)***
Agreed.
Double-speak, FK. If being saved is guaranteed, then temporal cocnepts do not matter. The Bible, however, makes it clear, that temporal salvation is not just another concept, but something that will happen to those repentant souls who await Him until the end.
God will keep His end of the promise, but we can't say that for ourselves. That is placing way too much trust in our sinful nature that keeps on sinning.
Those who "fall away" PERMANENTLY were never "there" to fall away from in the first place
More twisted words, FK. Makes you think a lawyer wrote it. :) How can you fall away from something you were never there to fall away from? Get real. The Bible speaks of falling away by those who were there.
Again, God will keep His promise and those who hope in Christ will not be snatched away, but those who reject God at some point in their lives (happens all the time) will be lost for good. The Bible tells us that we can't serve God and Mammon. Clearly it is a choice we make, and as long as we live on this earth we can make choices. God doesn't make that choice for us.
As WM posted, if God is good for His word, and we think He is, then a true believer cannot fall away permanently
Again, we are not compelled to love God. Those who love God and believe in Him will not be let go by Him. But there is no guarantee that at any point in your,life you can be driven to the devil's side.
How can someone who believes in Christ and loves God go "postal" and kill a dozen former co-workers? And, I want to stress this, anyone can be driven to violence. Anyone can give in to evil.
In addition, Paul teaches against any notion of "free ride", and we are the ones quoting it to you. What does it take for us to convince you that we don't believe that?
The "free ride" comes form the double predestination fantasy of the Reformed, which they find in Paul. If you are predestined to be saved, then there is nothing that will change that. That's a "free ride." That absolves you of all responsibility for your actions. It's a free ticket to sin boldly and call on Christ at the same time. Devilish indeed.
This is also where your misunderstanding of what Luther was saying comes in. Luther never taught what you are saying above
I am misunderstanding Luther? LOL! How can anyone sin boldly and believe? Those who love God cannot sin boldly. They will sin, unintentionally, but they will not do so forthright.
FK: That sounds positively Reformed
No it doesn't, FK, because because it implies a free will to choose God or to choose evil. By dying on the Cross, God gave us all an opportunity to repent. That much was given to all humanity. The rest is our decision.
My original comment and your response both mentioned the regenerate man not wanting to sin like he used to, instead his general disposition would be one of wanting to please God
And how does that "fit" into Luther's pecca fortier formula?!? Sinning boldly and wanting to "please" God is an oxymoron, FK.
Where does Christ speak of "salvational grace?" Get real.
Mark: If Adam and Eve could fall from grace, surely we can fall from grace as well.
FK: Apples and oranges. You can't compare when the starting positions were so opposite.
What? If man, who knew no evil and had it all, could fall from grace, certainly the wounded nature we all have can do the same a lot easier.
Oh horrors, imagine, no flood, no blood, no guts, no suffering, no repentance, no crucifixtion, no cruelty, no killings of the firstborn...what a "borning" world would that be. It's almost as if you are suggesting that God would have nothing to do!
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.