| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 02/07/2013 8:58:03 AM PST by Religion Moderator, reason:
Childish behavior |
Posted on 01/16/2013 8:57:49 AM PST by marshmallow
General audience, Benedict XVI defines the Incarnation as "something unimaginable, the face of God can be seen, the process that began with Abraham is fulfilled." The Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, he asks "for the great gift" to "proclaim together that Jesus is the Savior of the world."
Vatican City (AsiaNews) - "The desire to know the face of God is in every man, even the atheists," but this desire is only realized by following Christ, in whom, in the Incarnation, "something unimaginable took place, the journey that began with Abraham is fulfilled. He is the Son, the fullness of all Revelation; the mediator who shows us the face of God. "
And "to proclaim together that Jesus is the Saviour of the world" Benedict XVI asked for incessant prayers for "the great gift" of Christian unity in the forthcoming week, which begins on the 18th of this month.
Previously, in his catechesis, he again reflected on the meaning of Christmas, in a commentary on John's Gospel in which the apostle Philip asks Jesus to show them the Father. The answer of Jesus, "introduces us to the heart of the Church's Christological faith; For the Lord says: "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father" (Jn 14:9).This expression summarizes the novelty of the New Testament, the novelty that appeared in the cave of Bethlehem: God can be seen, he showed his face is visible in Jesus Christ".
The theme of "seeking the face of God" is present throughout the Old Testament, so much so that the Hebrew term "face", occurs no less than 400 times, 100 of which refer to God." The of Jewish religion which the religion forbids all images, "for God can not be depicted," and "can not be reduced to an object," tells us that "God...
(Excerpt) Read more at asianews.it ...
Why do you say "free will" isn't used in the Bible?
One of the Greek word used is hekousios and means:
of free will, voluntary, willing, with right good will, spontaneous.
As used in Philemon 1:14 but without your consent I did not want to do anything, so that your goodness would not be, in effect, by compulsion but of your own free will.
Also, in II Corinthians 8:3 For I can testify that to the utmost of their power, and even beyond their power, they have of their own free will given help.
The Greek word used for this is authairetos which means: voluntary, of free choice, of one's own accord
It was used twice in the New Testament, both times by Paul in the above verse as well as II Corinthians 8:17 when speaking of Titus, For indeed he accepted the exhortation; but being more forward, of his own accord he went unto you.
Though the word used is translated as "free will" in certain translations, and in others as "willing", "of themselves", "choosing", "own initiative", etc., I believe we can understand the meaning pretty well. Rather than impugn those who hold to sola Scriptura, I think we have adequate Scriptural warrant for believing that man does indeed have free will in certain areas. Though the word "Trinity" isn't used EVEN in translations, we still have adequate Scriptural warrant to believe in the triune nature of our God and can prove the deity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
I interject this, not to get in an extended argument over free will vs. predestination, but to defend the doctrine of the efficiency of the Bible to prove the tenets of the Christian faith. Like I said earlier, I believe the truth of the dichotomy between man's will and predestination is found somewhere in the humanly unfathomable middle and we need not stir up discord among each other over a doctrine that cannot be proven dogmatically between the two extremes.
Both could be correct in the verse you referenced. It’s both the faith OF Christ and faith IN Christ.
But this has gone beyond bizarre. The folks who build their faith on God doing it all are now saying but not the faith part. It’s our faith it’s not the faith OF Christ.
Because there was no goof there. If you don’t believe it’s the faith of Christ just say so and admit that man must do some of it. It must be a choice to have faith right?
FR is primarily a political discussion forum. I think you’d agree with that. We just went through a lengthy primary and election season in which Romney became the standard bearer of the Republican Party.
So, don’t you see that knowing if a person is a Romney supporter will give insight into their political leanings?
What if I asked “Are you a Ron Paul supporter?” and you said, “Yes”. Wouldn’t that give insight into your approach to politics?
Exactly why are you afraid of these things.
Let’s assume for sake of argument that you did not support Romney and were one of those who fought against him tooth and nail all the way until the election. Would that be different information than if you were one who supported him before he even announced his run?
James wrote “pure religion and undefiled before the Father is this, to visit widows and orphans in their affliction and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.”
So, James likes religion. Religion is a bible word.
Spot on! Thanks once again for clarity!
When did this become a political thread?
The Greek word used in the form it is used there would also mean worship.
The TRUTH is the Faith OF GOD. That is If you want to know Truth.
Are you suggesting that God has Faith? Since faith is the evidence of things not seen, is there something in the universe that God has not seen?
The term "Faith of God" is used by such aberrant Word of Faith preachers as Kenneth Copeland. They somehow take that phrase to claim that they have not their own faith (which was given to them in measure by God) but the ACTUAL FAITH OF GOD, which of course gives them the power to do all kinds of miracles, such as squeezing money out of the wallets of poor old ladies.
So I don't know what you think the Faith OF God is, but if it refers to obtaining something more than the mere measure of faith given to believers as noted in Romans 12:3 then I would have to say that your belief if dangerous to your spiritual well being.
My point, however is not whether or not the word is OF or IN, my point is that in order to come to some conclusion one way or the other, you have to rely on something other than the scripture itself. Clearly CB misquoted the Scripture when he underscored a word that is not even in the text. He interpreted the verse to suit his theology (whatever that is).
In other words, he did exactly what he accuses everyone else of doing. But will he admit that he was wrong?
I don't think so. That would require a measure of humility.
Indeed. I thought this was the entire [glorious!] message of the Gospel of John, Christ's beloved apostle....
And yet recently a "Battle of the Prepositions" has been proposed: Were those translators working ancient Greek into Elizabethan English "correct" in their choice as between "IN" or "OF?"
I daresay the answer to that question is not only unknown, but unknowable in principle. Unless you are an ancient Greek speaker in the cultural context of that age. It seems to me a fool's mission to go down that road.
Have you ever bothered to wonder whether God's Will and Purpose could be fully conveyed in human language at all? I have wondered about that; and my conclusion is: NO.
That's why God "had" to send His Son, Logos Alpha–Omega, our Lord Jesus Christ. Words do not suffice. Only the sacrificial Blood of our Savior suffices.
Just some thoughts dear CynicalBear, dear bother in Christ!
This is a very strange view to say the least. I noticed that your list only contained synergistic (Arminian) churches (PCUSA included). Since denominational affiliations aren't important, you might try a good Reformed Baptist or PCA church for balance.
It may be “the mere measure of faith” but it’s still the faith OF God isn’t it.
Glory be to God alone! If I ere let me ere in giving man no glory whatsoever.
If it is a measure of faith given to you by God, then it is your faith. If it is the faith of God (which by definition would necessarily be a perfect, unwavering, complete and total faith) then I think that once you have that, you can never stray from the faith and your eternal destiny is sealed forever.
I tend to think that nobody on earth has such faith. Instead we have much less than a mustard seed of faith given to us as a gift from God. But then it is a faith IN God and not THE FAITH OF GOD.
Only cultists like Kevin Copeland believe in that kind of faith being transmitted to mere mortals. This makes them, by their own claim, "little gods".
Do you share that belief with Kevin Copeland? Is that the point you were trying to make?
Ah hu!
>> Instead we have much less than a mustard seed of faith given to us as a gift from God.<<
So God gives us faith and now it’s we who take credit for using that faith. Got it.
>> Do you share that belief with Kevin Copeland?<<
I really don’t know what Kevin Copeland believes.
Yes, that's right. I think. I tend to think. I don't know everything.
Unlike you, I do not have a perfect knowledge or understanding of scriptures. I see through a glass darkly.
Obviously God has given you crystal clear vision so that you know everything even as you are known and you don't need to think or tend to think anything.
Must be nice.
No wonder you don't have to be humble. You ARE Perfect!
I forgot to ask. Who is this Kevin Copeland guy?
It is Kenneth Copeland (sorry) and you can look him up. I have concluded that you have an internet connection.
He has the same interpretation of that verse as you, so maybe you guys are members of the same fellowship. Maybe the Holy Spirit has given him the same interpretation of the scripture that he gave you. He seems to have a very similar view of the scriptures relying solely on the scriptures and the Holy Spirit to guide him. This has, IMHO, led him into greivous error.
He obviously doesn't follow any man, as his theology is rather unique to the group he hangs with.
Do you agree that with the FAITH OF GOD, that you can become a "little god" and by exercising the FAITH OF GOD you can direct creation or prosperity or health by your positive confession of THE FAITH OF GOD.
You see, unless you have people around you who can correct you when you stray from sound doctrine, then you can fall into damnable heresy. And if you think that you are immune from that because the Holy Spirit is your only guide, then I would dare to say that you probably already have fallen into doctrines of demons.
That is what a church is for. That is why churches have doctrinal statements. That is why Churches have confessions. That is why Christians are not opposed to identifying their fellowship so that others can understand the basics of the doctrines that they believe.
I don't know anything about your church or your doctrines. You accuse me and others of just not understanding scripture, but you never bother to explain what your understanding of the scriptures is. You just expect that everyone who reads the scriptures will come to the same conclusion about their meaning as you because you are guided solely by the Holy Spirit.
Well every single non-Christian cult professes that they received their abberrant doctrines from the Holy Spirit. Just because you say so, doesn't make it so. I am admonished to test the spirits and to hold fast to SOUND DOCTRINE.
Obviously Kenneth Copeland's doctrine is not sound, but he, like you, claims that he arrived at that doctrine by scripture and the Holy Spirit only.
So if there is a disagreement between you and Kenneth Copeland, why should I believe you and not him? What standard of biblical hermenutics and interpretation do you use? What lexicons and concordances do you consult? What confession to you adhere to? What teachers have given you guidance?
As I pointed out, every single English Language scripture is the product of the interpretations of men. Every single one. So how can you claim that you don't follow the teachings of any man, when you clearly identify the interpreted scripture as the Word of God?
According to my Strong dictionary, the Greek word that you used are two seperate words. 2 Cor 8:3 is authairetos which means voluntary. Strong does not relate this word to "free will". Only voluntary. Your second example in Philemon 1:14 is hekousion, a neuter of a derivative from G1635; voluntariness: - willingly. Please note that in neither of these cases is it used in terms of salvation.
But let's go with your definition. If you want to define salvation as "volunteering" to give yourself to Christ, you are saying you're offering yourself to God for His service and presumably you can't forgo volunteering for Christ's service. Just to be clear, is this correct? YOU are "voluteering, willingly, freely" giving yourself to the service of Christ or you are "not voluteering, unwillingly, rejecting" the call. Is that your definition?
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.