Posted on 08/27/2010 11:45:13 AM PDT by Hank Kerchief
You may note that I was just replying to your comment on the Greek word used in John 3:18. Some translations say "condemned" some say "judged" and I think they are saying the same thing in the context. SO to answer your question above:
Choose as to what? - to be condemned or not to be condemned
Judge as to what? - to be judged guilty or not guilty
To separate as to what? - to be separated from the guilty
To approve as to what? - to be approved as not condemned, not guilty, to be approved righteous.
But there's no objective standard to say that the text MUST be read with the "plain meaning." So those whose understanding of the Pauline language above is ANOTHER way, will go for the other meaning of the text.
To ME it look like they process of the other side can be coarsely described like this: They go into Scripture and find some themes. They build a world view on those themes, and then interpret the 'difficult' verses in the light of the theme they have selected and called 'primary.'
But if other verses are taken as "primary" then some difficulties are taken care while other ones arise.
Consequently the argument is essentially circular.
Similarly with phrases like "rightly divided." All the claims to an objective standard seem useless. Does the Lord condemn ALL repetition or just vain repetition undertaken with the idea that the petitioner will be heard for his many words? Is all philosophy human, and therefore vain, or is some worthwhile? The text will not tell us.
It depends on what one brings to it. So I am very glad that I have taken this time away from this kind of contention. I see almost nothing good coming from it.
Actually He was vindicating His righteousness for His long suffering with the sin of man,
{Romans3:23 for fall have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 gand are justified hby his grace as a gift, ithrough the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God jput forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in mhis divine forbearance he had passed over nformer sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.]
and He was pouring out on Christ the wrath at the sin of man, putting on Christ the punishment we all deserve
1Jo 4:10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son [to be] the propitiation for our sins.
The Greek word for propitiation is “hilasmos” and means to appease the wrath of an offended party or to satisfy the just demands of someone that has been offended. The Greeks used the word for appeasing their pagan gods. The Greeks had to do this by some righteous act, which would demonstrate their true good character.
You do see where this leads by now, yes?
“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.” Romans 1:18
Your post #9219 seems to reveal a great deal of paranoia.
The apparent testimony (I use the term testimony here very loosely) of the Roman Catholic Church seems to rests entirely on the pack of the priests and nuns. There is little visible testimony of anything from the common Catholic adherent.
So to us, Roman Catholicism consists in activities within four walls of a building, and when common Catholics exit that building we have no way to know from any visible “testimony” that Catholicism actually produces anything in people’s every day lives. It doesn’t appear to have any positive affect in the lives of my Catholic family members; or in my Catholic neighbors.
I have no way of knowing common Catholics from the rest of society by daily observation. The testimony of the church does not seem to rest on any common Catholics or the way they live.
So it is only natural that when he immorality of certain priests becomes known, it seems to paint such a devastating portrait of the church and the priesthood. It is because it is the life and practices of priests and nuns that seem to constitute the entire apparent, observable testimony of the Roman Catholic Church.
This was originally written in greek where words have very specific meanings ..it is the word from which we get the word eulogy
eulogeō
1) to praise, celebrate with praises 2) to invoke blessings
3) to consecrate a thing with solemn prayers
a) to ask God's blessing on a thing
b) pray God to bless it to one's use
c) pronounce a consecratory blessing on
4) of God
a) to cause to prosper, to make happy, to bestow blessings on
b) favoured of God, blessed
It does not mean sinless perpetual virgin assumed into heaven on her death ...it means blessed
Wagglebee:
Yes, I know because I believe what the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church teaches.
Runny:
Wag that is accepting that doctrine by faith alone ..Sola fide ..but not faith in Christ, but faith in Rome
Me:
Renny, that is ridiculous, once again. If Wagglebee says s/he believes what the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church teaches, then it includes the entirety of the Church teachings, NOT “faith in Rome.” Where did you come up with the idea that it was “not faith in Christ”? That right there is an excellent example of how the Calvinists twist other people’s words, and why your arguments are frequently useless.
Catholic as opposed to "natural"?
You have been making this same silly argument for years. It gets sillier every time you do it. Look at yourself! People use the word "blessed" in different ways, and how they use it determines the pronunciation. I guarantee you there are Calvinist, Baptist, Methodist, and Church of God congregants and preachers who use both pronunciations, any one of a number of meanings.
I gave you the source of my definition: Dictionary.com. What's the source of yours? Divine revelation?
Do you think the flesh is dirty?
> You can not believe it because..” the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.”1Cr 2:14
.
Precisely!
But none of us is going to get through to him by this thread; its going to take prayer.
Spiritual sight requires spiritual enlightenment that can only come from the Father.
.
Yea I know that you are usually not around..
Actually He was vindicating His righteousness
Obviously you don't: Back to pagan gods.
That is the sola that the catholic church follows
Sola Ecclesia Romanus
Only the Church of Rome is the Rule of Faith
Catechism of the Catholic Church
85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form [Scripture] or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.
Source: Catechism of the Catholic Church, published by Liguori Publications, English translation copyright 1994 by the United States Catholic Conference, Inc., Libreria Editrice Vaticana, page 27. Catechism of the Catholic Church
Where did you come up with the idea that it was “not faith in Christ”? That right there is an excellent example of how the Calvinists twist other people’s words, and why your arguments are frequently useless.
What ever gave you the idea there is any such thing as apostolic succession or an "apostolic church "? Or a pope? or a priesthood?
Catholics believe it because Rome tells them it is true..but it is found no where in the foundational writings on the NT church.. That is the sola that the catholic church follows
Sola Ecclesia Romanus
Only the Church of Rome is the Rule of Faith
“”but the inspired apostles like Paul who wrote who that seed actually was in Galatians, Christ, and those who received adoption as heirs.””
This is only part of it ,dear CYC.
All of the Scriptures are based on nuptials and the family of God .The OT Calls Israel spouse,in the NT Israel is replaced by the Church-Salvation for not Jews only ,but gentiles. There is much typology of Scripture that bears this out regarding Christ as head of the Church(New Adam) and Mary as Mother of all who have been redeemed (New Eve).
The Church Fathers knew typology well
From Saint Irenaues....
f any one, therefore, reads the Scriptures with attention, he will find in them an account of Christ, and a foreshadowing of the new calling (vocationis). For Christ is the treasure which was hid in the field, that is, in this world (for “the field is the world” ); but the treasure hid in the Scriptures is Christ, since He was pointed out by means of types and parables. Hence His human nature could not be understood, prior to the consummation of those things which had been predicted, that is, the advent of Christ.
And therefore it was said to Daniel the prophet: “Shut up the words, and seal the book even to the time of consummation, until many learn, and knowledge be completed. For at that time, when the dispersion shall be accomplished, they shall know all these things.”
But Jeremiah also says, “In the last days they shall understand these things.” For every prophecy, before its fulfilment, is to men full of enigmas and ambiguities. But when the time has arrived, and the prediction has come to pass, then the prophecies have a clear and certain exposition. And for this reason, indeed, when at this present time the law is read to the Jews, it is like a fable; for they do not possess the explanation of all things pertaining to the advent of the Son of God, which took place in human nature; but when it is read by the Christians, it is a treasure, hid indeed in a field, but brought to light by the Cross of Christ, and explained, both enriching the understanding of men, and showing forth the wisdom of God and declaring His dispensations with regard to man, and forming the kingdom of Christ beforehand, and preaching by anticipation the inheritance of the holy Jerusalem, and proclaiming beforehand that the man who loves God shall arrive at such excellency as even to see God, and hear His word, and from the hearing of His discourse be glorified to such an extent, that others cannot behold the glory of his countenance, as was said by Daniel: “Those who do understand, shall shine as the brightness of the firmament, and many of the righteous as the stars for ever and ever.’’
Thus, then, I have shown it to be, if any one read the Scriptures. For thus it was that the Lord discoursed with, the disciples after His resurrection from the dead, proving to them from the Scriptures themselves “that Christ must suffer, and enter into His glory, and that remission of sins should be preached in His name throughout all the world.” And the disciple will be perfected, and rendered like the householder, “who bringeth forth from his treasure things new and old.” St. Irenaeus (b. ca. 115) describes typology well in his Adversus haereses (Against the Heresies), Book IV, Chapter 26:
I suggest reading the following from U Dayton
It’s a slam dunk about Mary be written all over the OT
Marian Types Of The Old Testament
http://campus.udayton.edu/mary//meditations/advc01.html
Al be gone all day tomorrow and unable to respond
No. I was answering the statement that there were no monastic orders at the time of Christ.
Do I think the flesh is DIRTY?????
No! I think it’s beautiful. I ALSO think it’s private, and exclusive. That may be a foreign concept to you. By exclusive, I mean that since God impregnated Mary, then while Mary was alive, no human could come after Him. But apparently the Calvinists think she was just “simple Jewish girl” who was at the sexual service of God, man, whoever.
You don’t get the “consecrated” meaning, do you?
1Cr 1:18 — For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
So, by your own admission, you have been wrong before.
And, if memory serves, you've changed you views at least once after you left the Church.
You could be wrong, deluded, deceived again. But your theology accounts for it. It would only mean you weren't really elect to begin with.
So in other words intercourse with her covenant husband would have soiled her..
Not worth an answer, just demonstrably false.
You have a god killing his son (who is also god) in wrath over being offended and seeking revenge - an immutable, unchanging God, without passion; One God in the Holy Trinity. ??
How far off the rails can one go and still claim any consistent theology or view of God? Roll all the heresies into one and maybe you'd come close.
I believe not in the paganistic god of your and Calvin's reading of scripture.
Given a choice..I believe the word of God, not your faulty reading.
Likewise.
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.