Posted on 07/02/2010 6:56:08 PM PDT by Desdemona
Since no one is making that assumption, you would be wrong in labeling that as any kind of "reformed lexicon."
It is implicit in every 5-point TULIP believers' posts that I have seen on FR.
No one thinks it's good to put to death anyone for religious beliefs.
The Calvinist colonies in colonial America passed laws in order to put anyone to death who didn't agree with them. They thought it was good.
The Roman Catholic church slaughtered hundreds of thousands, if not more, and makes no apologies for it.
We are speaking of the formation of the government of the United States. The Catholic Church has killed nobody in the United States. The various Calvinist churches have and have been, not only unapologetic, but proud of it. Cotton Mather was a stereotypical 5-point TULIP Calvinist, was he not?
The RCC institutionalized murder by way of the Inquisition. It's no historical aberration in a less tolerant era. It is who they were and who they are.
I have wandered through the annals of American history and find no Inquisition, except for that pursued by the Calvinist colonies, and the Nixon Administration. Interestingly enough, Nixon was a Quaker, which is an offshoot of Calvinism, which is why the Calvinists hated them so much. Why is it that American Inquistional behaviour is entirely pursued by Calvinist and Calvinist offshoots, and not by Catholics? Could it be that the good of American governmental structure is not Calvinist at all?
The point, however, is that the scope of this kind of sin is vastly different. The Puritans put one woman to death, which is certainly indefensible.
Cotton Mather's reign of terror was not Puritan? He only put one woman to death? No wonder you guys can't get the Bible right; you can't even get American history right.
WELL PUT, imho.
THX.
ABSOLUTELY INDEED. GREAT STRAIGHTFORWARD BIBLICAL TRUTHS.
Then how would your Greek class translate John 6:20?
”Without fail. FWIW, “am” does indicate continued state of being.”
Would you care to elaborate?
John 6:20 - ...and he says to them “I Am; Fear Not!”
He’s walking on water and then they’re immediately transported. Of course, He’s the Great “I am” and they should not fear.
In seminary, I guarantee you that would have been the discussion. We loved to jump on stuff like that. :>)
So far as “am” being a continued state of being, it’s a present tense state of being verb. It really doesn’t assume anything regarding the beginning or ending of that state of being.
“But he saith to them: It is I; be not afraid.” (John 6:20)
so much for your Greek class.
Excellent post...Thanks AG
“This is a different thing than magical salvation-in-a-box practiced by once-saved-always-saved communions of faith. They instill false certainty, a belief that one will be saved regardless of one’s acts. Such belief is a vice that moves the person deceived away from God, it is called presumption (hopes for salvation without doing anything to deserve it),”
“This is why the doctrine of salvation by faith alone is contrary to scripture. We are saved by faith and good works.”
Those statements fly in the face of the clear teaching of scripture.
Gal 2:16, “Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.”
Hope is “confident expectation of its fulfillment”. This is hope:
Rom 5:1-2, “Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.”
And this:
2Ti 4:8, “Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.”
That is not “presumption”, but confidence in the finished work of Jesus.
Hope is grace given at the moment of regeneration when the Holy Spirit brings the spiritually dead to life by trusting in Jesus for salvation by faith alone.
Eph. 2:8-9, “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” No works involved in salvation since God is no man’s debtor and works put God under obligation.
Rom 15:13 Now the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that ye may abound in hope, through the power of the Holy Ghost.
“The point is, however, to answer your question, how does one know that he is saved? — and the answer is one does not know, one hopes”
That is not hoping; that is wishing; keeping one’s fingers crossed. It is impossible to have “hope” for salvation if salvation is dependant on our works now and one has to wait for the judgment to see if one measures up. It has to be a fearful looking for judgment since we sin daily and by nature and convenience do not exploit all of the opportunities sent our way.
“show that you don’t know what purgatory is. Purgatory is the cleansing of the soul from the imperfections of his inferior works”
Purgatory is a man made construct built on false premises in order to keep man spiritually enslaved. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that purgatory is a place of intolerable suffering and agony. Cardinal Bellarmine said “the pains of purgatory are very severe, surpassing any endured in this life.” Death is not the disciple of the Risen Christ joyfully going home to be with his Savior but the fearful soul going to a place of unspeakable horror and suffering. This suffering is supposed to make satisfaction for the unrepentant guilt. Here they suffer the pain and anguish resulting from the fact that they are excluded from the presence of the Lord and endure the “punishment of the senses”, that is, suffers positive pains which afflict the soul. The duration as well as the intensity of the suffering varies according to the degree of purification still needed
The Roman Catholic Church teaches that this suffering can be shortened and alleviated by the prayers and good works of the faithful on earth and especially the sacrifice of the mass. The Pope is supposed to have the jurisdiction over purgatory. It is his peculiar prerogative to grant indulgences lightening the suffering or even terminating them.
The doctrine of purgatory offers the false hope that man has a chance to be saved after death.
It rests on the false doctrine that justification is progressive.
1. Man is justified only in such measure as he is sanctified,
2. Justification is a matter of degrees, so the Council of Trent declared it to be,
3. Since justification is a continuous process, the redeeming death of Christ, on which it depends, must be a continuous processes also; hence its prolonged reiteration in the sacrifice by the Mass,
4. Since sanctification is obviously never completed in this life, no man ever dies completely justified; hence the doctrine of purgatory.
Justification is instantaneous, complete, and final,
1. Instantaneous, since otherwise there would be an interval during which the soul was neither approved nor condemned by God (Matt. 6:24),
2. Complete, since the soul, united to Christ by faith, becomes partaker of his complete satisfaction to the demands of the law (Col. 2:9, 10),
3. Final, since the union with Christ is indissoluble (John 10:28-29).
It rests on the false premises of,
1. Man must add something to the work of Christ,
2. That the “good” works of man are meritorious in the strict sense of the word,
3. That man can perform work in excess of the command to do his duty,
4. The Roman Catholic Church’s power of the “keys” is absolute in a judicial sense.
We can do nothing beyond what we are called to do that merits anything. It is our duty to do “good” works so how can anything we do redound to the benefit of anyone else except the recipient of the work? Luke 17:7-10, “But which of you, having a servant plowing or feeding cattle, will say unto him by and by, when he is come from the field, Go and sit down to meat? And will not rather say unto him, Make ready wherewith I may sup, and gird thyself, and serve me, till I have eaten and drunken; and afterward thou shalt eat and drink? Doth he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him? I trow not. So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, we are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.”
The use of 2 Macc. 12:43-45 for the doctrine flies in the face of Roman Catholic doctrine. Judas Maccabeas is praying for soldiers who were killed because they were idol worshippers. Idolatry was a capital crime in Israel and there was no salvation for one caught worshipping idols. It is a mortal sin in Roman Catholicism. How then can the soldiers be in purgatory which is the place for “believers” to be purified, and how cans any prayer or “good” works save them? The use of Luke 23:43 to somehow make paradise, purgatory is shown to be false by 2 Cor. 12:4 where Paul says he was caught up into the same place and saw wonderful sights too glorious to mention. He did not say he saw intolerable suffering, in fact nowhere in the scriptures is there mentioned a place where believers go after death where they are exposed to intolerable suffering out side the presence of God who has said He would never leave us or forsake us.
When we die we (believers) are present with the Lord (Phil. 1:23, Luke 23:43, John 14:3, Matt. 28:20, 1 Thess 5:10. 2 Cor. 5:6-9, “Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: (For we walk by faith, not by sight:) We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him.”
Believers will not suffer the wrath of God because of sin. John 5:24, Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. John 3:36, “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.”
“If that groups, the sheep, who get saved, are non-beleivers, what does it do to your doctrine, false that it is, of salvation by faith alone?”
Matt. 25 is a “millennial” parable, which is why there is no mention of the church. It explains how God will deal with the nations during the Millennium at the end of the age.
Is he? Recognized scholars and theologians say otherwise. Professor Robert M. Grant, a New Testament scholar at the U. of Chicago for the last 30 years says, for example, scholars have recognized that " it is not in order as it stands," that "it has been interpolated by an editor" and that "either the editor or the author made use of earlier sources." How can that be very consistent?
Professor Grant [A Historical Introduction to the New Testament] goes into specific details to show that it is not in order with several examples, starting with:
Proof that the Gospel is not in order is provided quite tellingly by Rudolf Bultmann.(Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart [ed. 3, 1959], III, 840-1.) (a) According to John 6:1, ‘after this Jesus went away to the other side of the sea of Galilee’; but according to the preceding chapter he was in Jerusalem. If chapter 5 follows chapter 6, everything falls into place.
he then proceeds to note that "John 7:15-24 is incomprehensible in its present location." He says "it belongs with the discussion in chapter 5, perhaps at the end; and in this case 7:1-14 goes with 7:25ff."
Furthermore, he finds that "John 10:19-21 must be the ending of a longer section dealing with opening the eyes of a blind man; it therefore goes with chapter 9, while 10:1-18 goes with 10:27-9."
Continuing, "John 12:44-50 has no relation to its context; it too goes with chapter 9" and "Something is wrong with the order of John 13-17, for 14:30-1 leads directly to the passion narrative (‘arise, let us go hence’) although three chapters of discourses follow. Chapters 15-17 must therefore originally have preceded chapter 14 (or, rather, 13:36-14:31)," and so on.
Grant further mentions that Bultmann recognizes "late glosses" apparently added to the Gospel for a variety of reasons probably in the early 2nd century. He finds "that the presence of glosses is often indicated by their being omitted in some manuscripts or versions. These glosses include John 7:53-8:11 (omitted by all ancient witnesses), 5:4 (omitted by most early manuscripts)" and some phrases such as 6:23 when the Lord gave thanks, 13:10 except the feet, 14:30 many things, 16:16 because I go to the Father."
These changes had the purpose of "making the work harmonize with church life and with the Church’s gospels." The proof of an "editor" is "provided first of all by noticing the most obvious additions he has made. The Gospel clearly comes to an end in 20:30-1; we must therefore assume that chapter 21 is an addition. Furthermore, the poetic style of the prologue is interrupted by prosaic verses which refer to John the Baptist (1:6-8, 15; cf. 1:30). Therefore we can go on to discover other additions which break the formal continuity of the book or produce contradictions."
How can this, and a preponderance of other evidence cited in his book equal consistency?
LOL indeed. You find that hard to believe but not, for example Elijah, Jonah or a talking donkey? Interesting.
There is no way these empiricists ("I can only trust my physical senses and reasoning") would have understood Jesus to mean that He was physically 2,000 years old.
I don't think the Pharisees were empiricists.
The issue was not new in John 8. Just a few chapters earlier
Of course not. John's entire Gospel is aimed at showing how the Jews conspired against him, had no clue what their religion was all about and that Jesus was the Jehovah.
To borrow a page from xzins, the Gospel of John flatly states that Jesus is God
Of course he does, and for a good reason. That was the whole purpose, historically and theologically, needed at the time of the writing.
And again, I and [my] Father are one. – John 10:30
Wonderful, what about "my Father is greater than I"? (same John, different chapter)
Truly, one would have to eliminate every writing attributed to John
No one is trying to do that. Maybe you decided to jump into this discussion without reading what was written previously, but denying that John was doing his best to create a hellenized God out Jesus was not one of the topics.
[Before Abraham was, I am] I perceive nature itself reacting to those simple words, I AM, spoken by the Creator of "all that there is."
Not anywhere in the Bible. God never says anything like that. He says "I will be what I am becoming" or "I am the Existence" in Hebrew and Greek versions of Exodus 3:14. Jesus only claims he was around before Moses.
Correct. What he is not saying is what is said in Exodus 3:14 either in Hebrew or in Greek, and since the Septuagint was the preferred source, then especially in Greek.
Clearly the εγω ειμι is not the sacred name of God anywhere in the Greek Bible, Old or New Testament, but ο ων is.
In deed John 14:9 is an example of an action began in the past and continuing into the present, represented by the word “eimi”.
No one is his right mind would have translated that as "I am." One can see that same form of present indicative "I am" being used as "I have been" in Slavonic; literally "how long am I with you?"
No translation from Greek to English will be perfect but using the English present perfect will do here.
John 8:58 is simply not a quote of Ex. 3:14.
A little learning can be a dangerous thing but so can an automobile. Still we must drive.
In John 8:58 it is egō eimi and in John 6:20 it is eimi egō.
John 8:58 is translated "I am" and John 6:20 is translated "It is I" except for instance in Young's Literal where it is translated "I am."
More importantly as we have testified repeatedly on this thread, the context of John 8:58 - whether looking at the dialogue of John 8:48-59 or better still, the Gospel of John - vis-à-vis Scripture as a whole is unmistakeably clear:
God's Name is I AM!
Yes, of course (John 9:14), but there is a source that argues ego eimi in John 8:58 can be translated as future tense:
The source then addresses the issue of Abraham's existence
So, he is arguing that in this case ego eimi can not be translated a past, "eternal present," or simple present, but as future!
Incidentally, the same source argues (quite interestingly I must say) from Psalm 2:7 that Jesus is not the YHWH of Exodus 3:14:
To some it seems that it is. Thus they conflate "I am" of Jn 8:58 with "that I AM sent you" of Ex 3:14, insisting that any time Jesus says ego eimi he is saying "I AM" (God), namely that he is using eimi as his sacred name and not as a predicate.
In Greek word order doesn't matter. Either way, ego eimi or eimi ego is not God's name.
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.