jasd Posted April 14, 2005 Share Posted April 14, 2005 Noticeably, I perceive that a ‘Catholic animus’ infuses your theology, do I err? I do not concur with your private animus. That being stated, consider: All that is in the public arena may be safely and vigorously dialoged; that includes the media of the airwaves, the printed media, pamphleteering, and that of the internet -- including blogs, etc; politicians, bureaucrats, movie stars, even one’s neighbours etc --perhaps; and, .Orgs -- yes, Catholics included. Etc. Where good sense dictates that there ought be a modicum of civility obtaining without the initiated and slighting language --is within a list which dialogs together via a format, -- more so, it ought obtain with those of such a list --asserting and purporting --that it is their very, very selves --that are the Remnant of Gd upon earth… These, should be more circumspect in practice than those of other economies. It is otherwise, maxima, maxima outré. There are distinctions of differences. Before one becomes too doctrinaire in one’s use of faith, it might befit to see that there exists a commonality separated only by interpretation and understanding, and not something acquired by itch. For example: Does Writ ever use faith as a verb instead of a noun? is the Catholic faith of credence more acceptable to Gd than its detractors would have it? or is it a lesser faith…? Or works: Rom 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: … v28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. Notice, that St Paul dwells upon the ‘works’ of the OT laws of Torah, as he mostly does…. So, when St Paul goes on --about the works of the law, is it that he is pointing out that the laws of the OT are obsolete? rather than that the NT Xtian faiths/believes by expressed works of grace? Or charity: Why does St Paul in 1 Corinthians 13:13 subsume faith to love? it seems he argues that --if faith saves, more so, will love save. Should that love be simply a warble in the heart, which saves? or is it expected of the ‘cleansed, regenerated, justified, sanctified, redemptified, … ;-) that their love (which saves) is expressed? by works of grace? Or should it be graceless and without volition? “Do we have to forgive others in order to have our sins forgiven by God? if yes, then we are not saved by faith alone. After all, we cannot be saved if we do not have our sins forgiven, and we cannot have our sins forgiven if we do not forgive others. Therefore, we are saved by faith and at least --the one work of forgiving others of their sins against us.” [ed.] To forgive is an act of volition, a work of grace. It is not inscribed as required --in the decalogue.. Faith cannot save you if you will not forgive… rather, it is faith inhabiting ‘works’ of grace, -- forensic legalism. >>I am telling you that legalism will cause one to fall from grace, period!!! Gal 5:4 You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be [:"red"]justified by law[/]; you have fallen from grace.<< [ed.] Well, …law, again. Which law is being referenced? >>2 Thessalonians 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.<< I suspect that, inasmuch as the above text bears little relevance…, it is a cant. Anyway, “falling away” (with recourse only to memory --rushing, y’know) derives from the act of ‘revolution/war’. That being said, might one suppose that ‘the man of sin’, ‘the son of perdition’ is actually hidden from you and me --until a revolution reveals ‘him’? If, that being so, ought one to overly fixate upon the pope and papacy… in the meantime? After all, the pope and the papacy are an open book, is it not so? Y’know, Hislop, et al… No mystery left is there? [ed. to remove the grinin', 'cool' dude... I don't know how he inserted himself] erratum: I figured it out. My bracketed 'a' was somehow transformed in submission to an 'a' bookended with colons:: et voila! --the grinin' 'cool' dude... livin' and larnin' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasd Posted April 15, 2005 Share Posted April 15, 2005 Quote: A perverted exegesis! If God only saved the "elect" then how does one know if he is part of that group? The fact is that God saved "all men" in Jesus Christ. What men decide to do with that salvation is another issue. 1 Tim 4:9 This is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance 10 (and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men , and especially of those who believe. Well, the stuff of Arminianism, Calvinism, and Universalism. That’s a plateful. Without attempting a dissertation upon ‘election’, as I am not invested in dogmas of predestination per se, let me instead pose a question with a text… Mt 24:24 …insomuch that, if [it were] possible, they shall deceive the very elect. What is your concept of the meaning of ‘the very elect’? Is it those who’ve been joined to an uncertain gathering of elect (remnant) --by faith, access to, and appropriation --of “The Truth”? or, what…? So, do you propose that these elect are those who have already ‘gone through’? or are they those who were chosen before the foundation of the world --by Gd’s foreknowledge? Does Gd really choose? does He elect? Are there other texts, which deal with the elect of Gd? What does Writ mean to convey to the reader when it declares that David was blameless or without guilt? The same David who, with his dying breath, upon his deathbed conspired to murder? Was he within or without the grace of Gd, --that he should be blameless? Does faith cover a multitude of sins? >>...how does one know if he is part of that group?<< It may be that one does not really know, n'cest pas? ...if it is that one works out his or her salvation with trembling and fear... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Posted April 15, 2005 Author Share Posted April 15, 2005 Gal 5:4 You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.<< [ed.] Well, …law, again. Which law is being referenced? The law being the Torah (which includes the moral law). Why does St Paul in 1 Corinthians 13:13 subsume faith to love? it seems he argues that --if faith saves, more so, will love save. As in "love is the fulfillment of the law?" Are you endeavoring to put "works" into the equation of salvation?...That's the work of Babylon! That's the work of human pride. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Posted April 15, 2005 Author Share Posted April 15, 2005 let me instead pose a question with a text… Mt 24:24 …insomuch that, if [it were] possible, they shall deceive the very elect. Rom 5:17 If, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man [Adam], much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. 18 Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men. "In Christ" the whole human race has been saved! That is true of us "in Christ". As children of Adam we must "receive" that salvation by faith to make it effective in our lives....Those who accept the gospel are part of the "elect".... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasd Posted April 17, 2005 Share Posted April 17, 2005 >>>Well, …law, again. Which law is being referenced?<<< >>The law being the Torah (which includes the moral law).<< I find myself agreeing with you in part, --outside the parenthetical. Yes, there is that, which is defined in the subject of Biblical Theology as --the moral law, that being, the Ten Commandments. That does despite to those others throughout history and worldwide who also lived by moral codes and laws. Note: Abraham lied to Pharaoh of Egypt; later lied again to Abimelech of Gerar; Isaac lied to a different Abimelech; Jacob lied to Isaac; Elisha lied to the blind soldiers; (and so on…); and lest one objects with a demurrer, there is record of NT dissimulation. One might take note that the heathen took umbrage (and sores ;-) at the lies. Might it have been that whereas, the OT ‘moral law’ does not contain the “Thou shalt not lie” proscription; --the moral laws of the heathen, by indication, --did? What does that say for ‘moral law’? mebbe there is reason that it is now obsolete; mebbe there is now a higher law of love/charity of grace by works, which rather, --obtains. >>Are you endeavoring to put "works" into the equation of salvation?<< It is there, and it is not I who has put its attestation into the NT. >>...That's the work of Babylon!<< Babylon!? please expand… >>That's the work of human pride.<< Nothing Pharisaical about it, I think St Paul put it thusly, “…work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” (Phil 2:12) And I suspect that most carbon units that work out their salvation do so with fear and trembling… as St Paul admonishes in his epistle to the Philippians. That is not to say that neither ‘works’ (as might be defined) nor ‘faith’ (as might be defined) are not part of the “equation of salvation”; at that, we are only dwelling upon the aspects of salvation from our _man’s_ viewpoint. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasd Posted April 17, 2005 Share Posted April 17, 2005 Quote: Rom 5:17 If, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man [Adam], much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. 18 Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men , so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men . Are there not many who cannot “…receive” because of unbelief or having not heard? Is unbelief or having not heard a sin? Are you purporting that unbelief is a sin and that Christ did not die for the sin of unbelief and, ipso facto, the unbelieving are lost? It seems strange that unbelief in Christ should not be a sin and that Christ did not cover that in His death for all the sins of mankind; therefor, the unbeliever also, ought be saved, --or [spared]? Who are they that the Father draws? and those that He does not…? Can one believe except the Father draws him? if there are those whom the Father has chosen to give to His Son, who are those whom the Father did not choose to give to His Son? >>so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men. >> >>"In Christ" the whole human race has been saved! That is true of us "in Christ".<< So, I take it that there is a postulation inherent in the above for the ‘holiness of the pope-in-Christ’; those for whom life “in Christ” is holy…, even holiness. >>As children of Adam we must "receive" that salvation by faith to make it effective in our lives....Those who accept the gospel are part of the "elect"....<< So, then, the lead text turns upon “receive”. Wha’happened to one man this -- another man that? and, “acquittal and life for all men”? There should indeed, be life for all men, unless… there is the votive act of receiving… accompanying faith :-o Jn 6:39 …that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. Jn 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. The salvific inclusive… Jn 6:45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father cometh unto me. Who are the “they…all”? The text seems to support a past and present ‘elect’ and a future ‘taught’ -- per the above bolded and underlined. I’m going to apply coinage with the use of preterite as future preteritive … that one might begin to sense a time (millennium?) that, “they…all shall be taught of [by] God”, might obtain. It is, as I’ve said, --I’m not much invested at this time in dogmas on predestination and, inclusively --per se, the elect; though, I read the Bible as suggesting that possibility [probability?]. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Posted April 18, 2005 Author Share Posted April 18, 2005 “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.” "God our Savior...desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." "For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men" "For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasd Posted April 19, 2005 Share Posted April 19, 2005 Jn 17:9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine. Acts 2:47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved. Rom 9:11 (For [the children] being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth Rom 9:23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, One might dis fer dat throughout Writ, but it would probably prove more interesting to study-out the idea of ‘election’ in Writ; beginning, perhaps with…, how unelect were those the Lord visited whilst His body lay in the tomb, according to St Peter? how unelect were those born of corrupted flesh? who were not ‘perfect in their generations’, as was Noah? who Gd did not wish to ‘save’ (at that time?), but rather, purposed to destroy in the deluge…? And, as long as one is on the topic of St Peter’s telling of Christ visiting ‘those in prison’: What of the other goat of atonement? did it represent Christ or Satan? if Christ, when other would He have ‘removed’ to the ‘wilderness’ than at this time spoken of by St Peter…? >>…who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe."<< 1 Tim 4:10 Well, it seems that there is the case here for an argument that there are those --elect… and not as --elect, …the unelect. It seems the epistle to Timothy suggests that there is something to be said for a ‘universalism’ of sorts. I mean, if Gd reboots the saved, what prevents Him from rewiring or installing new software (borrowed ;-) in those presently thought lost (--by the disparate community of believers) that they might be ‘spared’… Why would the prospect of being cast into a fire for consumption be cause that “every knee should bow…”? rather, manifestation of Gd’s mercy extended --even to the despised and unclean vessels fit only for destruction might be cause… Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Posted April 19, 2005 Author Share Posted April 19, 2005 >>…who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe."<< 1 Tim 4:10 Well, it seems that there is the case here for an argument that there are those --elect… What part of "all" didn't you understand? If God "elects" some to be saved and some to be lost then there's no free will and God plays favorites. This would make God a sinner! Hence your teaching is heresy.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasd Posted April 20, 2005 Share Posted April 20, 2005 >>>…who is the Savior of all men, [:"red"]especially[/] of those who believe."<< 1 Tim 4:10<<< [ed.] >>What part of "all" didn't you understand?<< So, is He is, or is He ain’t --the Savior of all…? If He ain’t, the sentence contains the spectre of election --according to the dogma of orthodoxy. If He is, there is still yet the spectre of election, governed by the adverbial phrase --[:"red"](e)specially…[/]; by tagma or orders, at least. Might it be that you are heavily invested in parochialism, Robert? Might it not be that there is more to be gleaned from the above sentence than a humble adjective? Might there be more to what St Paul is saying, than “all”? Writ is not a matter of a private interpretation; yours, mine, or that of another. There is only grief accompanying the idea of inerrancy; and to be preferred, may be that one only --puts a thing upon the table without intemperate fervency. >>If God "elects" some to be saved and some to be lost then there's no free will and God plays favorites. Oh come now, “Of all the families of the earth, I have chosen only you” (paraphrased). Providential plan notwithstanding, why could not Gd have chosen the Chinese, the Indians, or another ethnic or tribal group? mebbe, it had something to do with the purity of blood through which the Saviour was to be born? Nevertheless, Gd chose… and it may or may not be that the name of my tribal unit will be upon a gate of the New Jerusalem. Twelve names. Is there a bit of selectivity in that? Come, come, Robert, --free will? Why was Gd going to kill Moses? where was Moses’ free will there? And afterwards, why did He desire to begin again with Moses (after almost having slain the near side of three million perfidious and ignorant former slaves)? what mattered ‘free will’ to them? Amo 3:2 You only have I known of all the families of the earth: … KJV Deut 7:6 For thou [art] an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that [are] upon the face of the earth. v7 The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye [were] the fewest of all people: NIV Deut 7:6 …his treasured possession… >>This would make God a sinner!<< Hyperbole! >>Hence your teaching is heresy....<< Robert, I don’t teach nor do I purport to do so. I haven’t passed myself off as anything other than a poor grammar student, one the army didn’t want anything to do with, and I think I mentioned I put away an awful lot of scotch. I only proffer things to be placed on the table. I’ll even dialog a point contrary to mine. This is the proper venue for such things, isn’t it? >>…heresy....<< Do you really want to go there? I mean, the kind of ‘He said’, ‘She said’, sort of --heresy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Posted April 20, 2005 Author Share Posted April 20, 2005 >>If God "elects" some to be saved and some to be lost then there's no free will and God plays favorites. Oh come now, “Of all the families of the earth, I have chosen only you” (paraphrased). "In Christ" God has saved "all mankind" - period. But not all men will, through their free wills, accept Christ's full and complete work....Why? Unbelief/ legalism!!!! "His Holiness" comes under what John terms "the anti-Christ"! What is this spirit: 1 John 4:2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the [:"red"]flesh[/] is from God; 3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. The Roman Catholic higharchy (the System) rejects that Jesus as God came in sinful, fallen flesh (Greek: Sarx)! They say no -- Mary's womb was cleansed from all original sin so that Christ was born free of our fallen humanity! That heresy denies the truth as it is "in Christ". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasd Posted April 21, 2005 Share Posted April 21, 2005 >>"In Christ" God has saved "all mankind" - period. But not all men will, through their free wills, accept Christ's full and complete work....Why? Unbelief/ legalism!!!!<< Reading the above, I’m persuaded that you really meant to say something or the other like, ”In Christ” Gd has provided the means for the salvation of “all mankind” – period, rather than the absolute “has saved” -- “all mankind”; otherwise, the question of whether Gd has, indeed, saved “all” or not, obtains. That He wills to ‘save’ -- but that His will is contravened by the will of man suggests a rather shortened ‘hand’ of Gd. A shortened hand of Gd is a disturbing thought… as, what then does one make of the declaration “And so all Israel shall be saved” (Rom 11:26) “…all Israel…” is rendered moot by the above formulation; or else there is more to salvation than published. Methinks that either we don’t understand what St Paul is trying to tell us or that it borders on the theosophical thoughts of ascending and/or descending ‘masters’ of the Blavatsky kind. Per the matter of unbelief: So, it is that unbelief is a sin unto death? mebbe, it is rather… that ‘unbelief’ does not get one seated in ‘orchestra’ or the ‘loges’; mebbe, rather, ‘unbelief’ is directed to first, or second, or third, or… fourth, fifth, etc, balcony? or to “…shame [and] everlasting contempt”? Re Legalism: It seems that to be ‘in Christ’ is ‘Christ in…’; ipso facto, ‘Christ in…’ is the extension of grace, which… Now, the matter of free will: I am somewhat put to mind of the irresistible will of Gd meeting the immovable will of man --and finding the will of man to be the sovereign force --it is not. Considering the chaff of philosophical thought -- ignorance, unbelief, legalism, circumstances, etc… I wonder if the idea of the free will of man nullifying the will and the freely given gift of Gd is mebbe, --front-loaded --with unreasonable expectations or burdens placed upon text…? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Posted April 22, 2005 Author Share Posted April 22, 2005 Quote: >> "In Christ" God has saved "all mankind" - period. But not all men will, through their free wills, accept Christ's full and complete work....Why? Unbelief/ legalism !!!!<< Reading the above, I’m persuaded that you really meant to say something or the other like, ”In Christ” Gd has provided the means for the salvation of “all mankind” – period, rather than the absolute “has saved” -- “all mankind”; otherwise, the question of whether Gd has, indeed, saved “all” or not, obtains. No, not provisional! Here, read: Rom 6:6 For we know that our old self was crucified with him Rom 7:4 you also died to the law through the body of Christ 2 Cor 5:14 One died for all, therefore all died Eph 2:6 Even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6 and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places, in Christ Jesus Like I said, Christ AS ALREADY saved all mankind in Himself....Since His love prohibits force, He begs us to accept this completed salvation as a free gift.... That's the gospel! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasd Posted April 23, 2005 Share Posted April 23, 2005 >>"His Holiness" comes under what John terms "the anti-Christ"!<< That, is a difficult position to maintain, as “Holiness” is easily found to be definable both in lexicons and dictionaries. Are you not also holy? Are you not a saint per NT doctrine? So, why are you holy or a saint and JP II is not? (Holiness is explained above) Quote: What is this spirit: 1 John 4:2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the [:"red"] flesh [/] is from God; 3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist , whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. The Roman Catholic higharchy (the System) rejects that Jesus as God came in sinful, fallen flesh (Greek: Sarx)! They say no -- Mary's womb was cleansed from all original sin so that Christ was born free of our fallen humanity! That heresy denies the truth as it is "in Christ". >>…sinful, fallen flesh (Greek: Sarx)!<< I think “sinful, fallen flesh = Sarx” carries the Greek a bridge too far. >>…Christ was born free of our fallen humanity! That heresy…<< I don’t know from heresy… but, wasn’t the lamb of Gd to be represented by a spotless lamb or goat, that is, without blemish…? Extending that thought…, isn’t fallen humanity a contradiction of ‘without blemish’? I’m assuming that you are referencing the RC solemnity of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary. I think church tradition holds that it was the fusion of her own created soul and body that was Immaculately Conceived --that she might provide the unstained earthly vessel for the Lord. Although 1 John 4:2,3 makes no distinction whatsoever as to ‘flesh’, I suppose St John hadn’t considered what interpretive understandings might be brought to bear upon ‘flesh’ ---many centuries later; otherwise, one simply takes it that a child born of a mother is corporeal; and, dare I say? the RCs testify to the ‘flesh’ of Christ moreso than other Xtians in that s/he believes (or now, in part?) in the transubstantiation of the elements in the Eucharist. Considering various texts stating that the father’s sins are bequeathed to future generations, it seems to be eminently desired that a declension positing Christ’s partaking of original sin through His mother be interdicted posthaste with a theological resolution by the church fathers. They seem to have (more recently than might have been desired) dealt with the threat of that theological fault line to their satisfaction; whereas, is it not true that some few .Orgs still wrestle with the summa doctrina, as it were, of the nature of Christ vis-à-vis the preAdamic fall or the postAdamic fall, --with questions of predisposition to sin attending? Am I right to assume that there yet exists in the aforementioned ‘some few .Orgs’ outstanding and periodic dialog regards the nature of Christ’s flesh…? Might I be right in inferring that this above proffer of sarx/flesh bears a bit of the synthetic? and cannot be made to harmonize with the other mentioned attributes in the Johannine epistles 1 and 2, which laid out the identifiers of the antichrist. Num 14:18 The LORD [is] longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing [the guilty] , visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation]. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Posted April 23, 2005 Author Share Posted April 23, 2005 >>"His Holiness" comes under what John terms "the anti-Christ"!<< That, is a difficult position to maintain, as “Holiness” is easily found to be definable both in lexicons and dictionaries. Are you not also holy? Are you not a saint per NT doctrine? So, why are you holy or a saint and JP II is not? (Holiness is explained above) We are "Saints"...we are "Holy" because of our position "in Christ" by faith! "In Christ" we have a sinless, glorified humanity, but that life is "in Christ" in the heavenly places. [see 1 John 5:11; Eph 2:6; Colossians 1:13] The Papacy distorts this truth and incorrectly applies it to sinful men such as JP II. Jesus is clear on the subject: "There is none good but one, that is, God" [Mat 19:17] The Pope claims Holiness (goodness) - an attribute that only God can claim. Therefore the Pope blasphemes God....Paul speaks to this in 2 Thess. 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day [the falling away from the true gospel] shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Posted April 23, 2005 Author Share Posted April 23, 2005 Quote: wasn’t the lamb of God to be represented by a spotless lamb or goat, that is, without blemish…? Extending that thought…, isn’t fallen humanity a contradiction of ‘without blemish’? Fallen humanity (or even better, sinful humanity) is most definitely blemished for it is sinful! As God, Christ's divinity was positively sinless or without sin. The Holy Spirit called Christ, as God, "that Holy thing"! (see Luke 1:35) But the humanity that Christ's divinity took at the incarnation was our fallen humanity under the law's curse! That can be seen in the following: Gal 4:4 But when the fulness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, 5 in order that He might redeem those who were under the Law.... What does it mean to be "born of a woman"? Job 15:14 What is man, that he can be clean? Or he that is born of a woman, that he can be righteous? When are we considered sinners? Ps 51:5 Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me. The minute Christ's divinity assumed our fallen humanity, that humanity came under the curse of the law. That's what Paul means by "born under the law". To be "under law" is death and condemnation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Posted April 23, 2005 Author Share Posted April 23, 2005 Luther on Galatians: No wonder Paul was able to foretell the abominations that Antichrist would bring into the Church. That Antichrists would come, Christ Himself prophesied, Matthew 24:5, "For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many." Whoever seeks righteousness by works denies God and makes himself God. He is an Antichrist because he ascribes to his own works the omnipotent capability of conquering sin, death, devil, hell, and the wrath of God. An Antichrist lays claim to the honor of Christ. He is an idolater of himself. The law righteous person is the worst kind of infidel. Those who intend to obtain righteousness by their own efforts do not say in so many words: "I am God; I am Christ." But it amounts to that. They usurp the divinity and office of Christ. The effect is the same as if they said, "I am Christ; I am a Savior. I save myself and others." This is the impression the monks give out. The Pope is the Antichrist, because he is against Christ, because he takes liberties with the things of God, because he lords it over the temple of God. I cannot tell you in words how criminal it is to seek righteousness before God without faith in Christ, by the works of the Law. It is the abomination standing in the holy place. It deposes the Creator and deifies the creature…. I cannot get over the blindness of the Pope's theologians. To imagine that the mighty forces of sin, death, and the curse can be vanquished by the righteousness of man's paltry works, by fasting, pilgrimages, masses, vows, and such gewgaws. These blind leaders of the blind turn the poor people over to the mercy of sin, death, and the devil. What chance has a defenseless human creature against these powers of darkness? They train sinners who are ten times worse than any thief, whore, murderer…. Let us not fail to thank God for delivering us from the doctrine of doubt. The Gospel commands us to look away from our own good works to the promises of God in Christ, the Mediator. The pope commands us to look away from the promises of God in Christ to our own merit. No wonder they are the eternal prey of doubt and despair. We depend upon God for salvation. No wonder that our doctrine is certified, because it does not rest in our own strength, our own conscience, our own feelings, our own person, our own works. It is built on a better foundation. It is built on the promises and truth of God…. This man Luther is also accused of being a pestilent fellow who troubles the papacy and the Roman empire. If I would keep silent, all would be well, and the Pope would no more persecute me. The moment I open my mouth the Pope begins to fume and to rage. It seems we must choose between Christ and the Pope. Let the Pope perish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasd Posted April 24, 2005 Share Posted April 24, 2005 Quote: …one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men . "In Christ" the whole human race has been saved ! That is true of us "in Christ". _ed._ Quote: That He wills to ‘save’ -- but that His will is contravened by the will of man suggests a rather shortened ‘hand’ of Gd. A shortened hand of Gd is a disturbing thought… as, what then does one make of the declaration “And so [:"red"] all Israel [/] shall be saved ” (Rom 11:26) “…[:"red"] all Israel [/]…” _ed._ I’m using the above two quotes, the first Robert’s, the second mine, --to segue that, which I’ll develop later but which I’ll reference in the following... Re: Earth as metaphoric ‘prison’, per appeal to Jeremiah 4… and a small treat of ‘to meet’ 1 Thess 4:17 Then we which are alive [and] remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. There are only four times in the NT that the word meet, in its particularly referenced form and intent (cf 1 Thessalonians 4:17), are used. James Strong identifies the word meet in these instances as #529 (apantesis; a {friendly} encounter:--meet.) –ed]. Following, are the four times that the NT used #529 apantesis – to meet --with the sense mentioned above, that is, that of 1 Thessalonians 4:17. None of these texts possess material from which to legitimately configure a doctrine for a ‘resurrection and translation’ of saints to the heavenlies --for a ‘millennial rest’, at the Advent of Jesus; rather, there can be parsed only a contradictory meaning. A simple reading of these four texts yields --another viewpoint. To accept instead, the matter as it is currently being put forward doctrinally, is to, well…, embrace suspect constructives. Compare: John 12:13 Took branches of palm trees, and went forth to meet him, and cried, Hosanna: Blessed is the King of Israel that cometh in the name of the Lord. After going out to meet Christ, all that greeted Him, as well, those with Him, --returned to the city of Jerusalem. Compare: Mt 25:1 Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet, the bridegroom. …v6 And at midnight there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him. … v10 And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut. v11 Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us. Verse 10 is clear regards the process involved to meet; there is no indication that the foolish virgins also found themselves ‘caught up’ and hied to the gates of heaven to plead --Lord, Lord, open to us! (v11). Compare: 1 Thess 4:17 Then we which are alive [and] remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. There is no indication here that the redeemed _‘ever being with the Lord in the air’_ are raptured, in its Fundamental Evangelical sense, as the first step of an ensuing journey, which has its culmination in the dwelling place of Gd, that is, the heavenlies; nor does it imply that the saints _are ever to dwell in the air_; however, the application by St Paul of #109 aer as in, breathable, circumambient air --in the text, --proves interesting, of itself. The redeemed, _ever being with the Lord_, implies only that the redeemed shall have their dwelling with the Lord, and to meet in the air is, if for reason other that there is something else being performed upon earth while the redeemed are in the clouds, --perhaps a simple matter of protocol. Can one imagine Gd and the hosts of heaven arriving at earth having no protocol in place, the matter of honour and glory neglected? Why then should we expect that 1 Thessalonians 4:17 indicates a different scenario than that, which comparison of scripture and precept establishes? Simply, we can’t. Lastly, Compare: Acts 28:15 And from thence, when the brethren heard of us, they came to meet us as far as Appii forum, and The three taverns: whom when Paul saw, he thanked God, and took courage. v16 And when we came to Rome, … There were in and about Rome taverns, usually at crossroads, that were similar to what our Granges and Union Halls are today. St Paul, upon having been met by the brethren, did not turn about to return to the Levant but rather, the entire company continued onward to --from whence they who had come to greet St Paul, that is, Rome. To meet, as utilized in NT Writ, establishes that those ‘caught up’ to meet the Lord in the air do so to ‘effectively’ provide an ‘escort’ of the redeemed for the Lord; immediately returning to --earth with the Lord, --to begin a millennial reign. Addendum: Mt 8:34 utilizes ‘to meet’ but bears no relevance Lu 14:31 also shares no affinity in its use of ‘to meet’ Mk 14:13 employs ‘there shall meet’ with, upon first glance, a slight but insufficient nod to relevance I am again, compelled to ask, where, are the texts that say that the earth will be covered in darkness for one thousand years, this same earth, upon which the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan will be bound with chains of circumstance (as per orthodoxy), instead of cast into the bottomless pit, --symbolism, notwithstanding? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Posted April 24, 2005 Author Share Posted April 24, 2005 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasd Posted April 25, 2005 Share Posted April 25, 2005 Sorry. I was quite under the impression that “all” together with its relevant enlargements were being dialoged on this thread for some time now. It seemed that inasmuch, as you were putting forth what begins to appear to be free will Arminianism, --I might balance that proposition with a Biblical countenance of an indirect view on Universalism*; in fact, I take it by your remonstrance that I assumed incorrectly. *except that I would, in some instances, employ the term ‘spared’, rather than saved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasd Posted April 25, 2005 Share Posted April 25, 2005 >>We are "Saints"...we are "Holy" because of our position "in Christ" by faith! "In Christ" we have a sinless, glorified humanity, but that life is "in Christ" in the heavenly places. [see 1 John 5:11; Eph 2:6; Colossians 1:13]<< I see several points in the above with which to take issue, the first is to question how is it that you, happenstancely, have the insight to adjudge the quality or character of the faith JP II held-to; and moreover, to affirm the disposition of JP II “in Christ”? And again, in heavenly places or no, how is it that you have determined _your (ascertained by your linguistic application of we and our)_ “Saintly” or “Holy” position (I take it that it is “in Christ”) yet, are certain of the wrongfulness of that ascription, as it might pertain to the ‘Holiness’ of JP II? Do you have it on good authority that he, at the least, was not pious? or that he was not either devoted or consecrated to Christ? >>The Papacy distorts this truth and incorrectly applies it to sinful men such as JP II. Jesus is clear on the subject: "There is none good but one, that is, God" [Mat 19:17]<< I don’t think anyone referred to JP II as ‘His Goodness’, which would therefor, render the point moot. >>The Pope claims Holiness (goodness)…<< I recall that the NT saints were holy in spite of Matthew 19:17, and this post began with We are "Saints"...we are "Holy". I saw nothing to suggest that JP II might be excluded from the selective use of… We are "Saints"...we are "Holy". >>…- an attribute that only God can claim.<< No one disputes the allocation of the parenthetical ‘goodness’; however, that posit is excursive. >>Therefore the Pope blasphemes God....<< [ed.] If I may say so, that is a conclusion that doesn’t follow its premise…(I remind, We are "Saints"...we are "Holy"). “Therefore”, as utilized, is an awfully large presumption. >>Paul speaks to this in 2 Thess. 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day [the falling away from [:"red"]the true gospel[/] ] shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.<< [ed.] There is the vague Protoevangelium of Genesis 3:15, which after, successively, evolved through 1 Corinthians 15:28. Somewhere, anywhere, along the chronological manifestation of that growth, there may be isolated a “true gospel” for the moment and for the individual. It is my considered observation that for one to lay a charge of ‘falling away’ from the “true gospel” requires some temerity, in light of the constitution of the everlasting ‘gospel’. So, I’m taking it that you mean to imply that the bolded of 2 Thessalonians 2:4 is a direct reference to the pope, that son of perdition? No chance that you may be wrong? Because it interests me, let me address one extracted clause… >>…he as God sitteth in the temple of God,…<< Some say that the NT ‘temple of Gd’ is the individual you, me, other…, and not an edifice of sort per se. WDYT? And, in your estimation, are the Biblical maledictions of antichrist, man of sin, son of perdition, etc, of the pope? Mind you, throughout the past several millennia, no pope qualified as the antichrist. That is not to say that the next one following the death of this present pope might not qualify. That being said, perhaps, it is time one looks elsewhere for this ‘antichrist’ of 1st and 2nd John. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Posted April 25, 2005 Author Share Posted April 25, 2005 Holy and blameless "IN CHRIST" - not in ourselves! We are righteous by faith. The Pope claims infused righteousness. He claims to be Holy of Himself and not "in Christ". He denies that Christ came in our fallen flesh. That is the spirit of anti-Christ. [i have removed four words--GM.] Rob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Posted April 25, 2005 Author Share Posted April 25, 2005 Quote: Holy and blameless "IN CHRIST" - not in ourselves! We are righteous by faith. The Pope claims infused righteousness. He claims to be Holy of Himself and not "in Christ". He denies that Christ came in our fallen flesh. That is the spirit of anti-Christ. [i have removed four words--GM.] What? "You must be Catholic?" [This is a rhetorical question] What if someone were defending Ellen White and I said, "you must be Adventist?" Would you remove that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasd Posted April 26, 2005 Share Posted April 26, 2005 >>Holy and blameless "IN CHRIST" - not in ourselves! We are righteous by faith.<< Again, I ask, How is it that you know JP II was not “IN CHRIST”? and, after such an assertion --you have no hesitancy where it concerns your own self? Without exhausting similarities…, Jn 13:34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. v35 By this shall all [men] know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. A couple of things here… is there explicit in the above ‘commandment’ of Christ an adjuration to works of grace? Can one claim to be “IN CHRIST” whilst deprecating and laying accusations to another who professes ‘salvational belief’ in Christ? Can ‘salvation by faith’ be lost by disregard of the explicit “A new commandment I give…”? I can’t vouch for the hidden secrets of the heart of JP II but I daresay, I’ve seen the fruits of the man that they are better fruits than I’ve seen in some few ‘Protesting’ .Orgs. >>We are righteous by faith.<< Are you saying that one never having heard the name Jesus, or otherwise, cannot be righteous? are you saying that before the foundations of the world were laid Gd did not predestinate the elect --to be blameless and therefor, righteous (in another sense of the word)? Faith with overly limiting proscriptions placed upon it --is not the catchall it is sometimes made out to be. St Paul was most legalistic in writing and his gospel was ‘Christ and Him crucified’. And what does one yet do with St James? Jas 2:14 What [doth it] profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? [:"red"]can faith save him?[/] … v18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Perhaps, the following texts in the KJV and the NIV can expand upon the tapestral warp and woof of faith and works of grace. KJV Jn 14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater [works] than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. NIV Jn 14:12 I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. St James in 2:14 may be asking to be shown the ‘greater works/things’ that believing and faithing ought to manifest. The question obtains, who amongst us has the faith to give sight to the blind, the lame to walk and to leap, the loaves and fishes of our neighbour to be increased (I’ll bet that our own pantries are not filled ;-), etc. Seems that either the faith that believeth unto salvation is one of satisfactory paucity (paulis), or there are other degrees and qualities of/to faith… >>The Pope claims infused righteousness.<< Not certain as to how you are defining “righteousness” but, wouldn’t the indwelling HS be infused righteousness? and, isn’t that indwelling a promise… to even such as JP II? >>He claims to be Holy of Himself…<< And, I gather that that disallows the appellation ‘holiness’? and that to anoint oneself for consecration to Gd is futile? that is, without an ‘external’ infusion? >>…and not "in Christ". He denies that Christ came in our fallen flesh.<< Are the arguments of ‘how many points of dialog concerning the nature of Christ that can be placed upon a pinhead’ --salvific? or confirming of blasphemy? >>That is the spirit of anti-Christ.<< That is a singularly personal and emotionally-charged brief, for it is not the product of exposition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasd Posted April 26, 2005 Share Posted April 26, 2005 Antichrist(s): 1 Jn 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. v19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; … When, is it taught, that the popes came into their own/ascendency… AD 1st, -- 4th, 5th, 6th century? earlier? later? Yet, at the time of the writing of 1st John, “They” were already going (went) out from “us”, … “They” who went out from “us”, who were they? Were they the pope and the papacy? Was the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary already conceptualized and promulgated? 1 Jn 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Is it papist teaching “…that denieth that Jesus is the Christ”? “…that denieth the Father and the Son”? or has it ever been papist teaching? 1 Jn 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. Isn’t the doctrine of transubstantiation an acknowledgement of the flesh of Jesus Christ? no matter theological dogmas to the contrary? Besides, it is as I’ve posited; arguments of the nature of fallen vs unfallen nature aside, Christ, to have been the spotless and unblemished lamb or goat of Pasch, or the two spotless and unblemished goats of Atonement could not have fulfilled the ‘spotless and unblemished’ requirements of law if He were spotted, blemished, and suffused --as the sin-wretched flesh of fallen man. There could not have been a perfect and acceptable sacrifice consisting of a wretched and diseased offering. Christ was fallen only in that the law of mortality obtained by virtue of the word of Gd vis-à-vis man. 2 Jn 7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. Given the plainly written text of St John without distinction as to sorts of flesh, for one to dwell upon the sort of hypothetical constructs, which Jesus took strong exception to, as “the traditions of man”, would, …seems to me, to be formulating outside the pale. The text 2 John 7 addresses only this, that one denying that Gd came to partake humanity in the flesh and to thereby, offer Himself as propitiation for offense of mortality, --might be entered into the camp of [the] antichrist(s). Having Writ in hand with provision of the texts of 1st and 2nd John identifying [the] antichrist(s), one, continuing to advocate that JP II was the antichrist (spirit, or otherwise), approaches Writ tendentiously. Given these above verses of Saint John’s, which establish the identity of [the] antichrist(s)…, JP II and whichever pope that fails to meet the criteria of these proffered texts, also fails to meet the expectations of an honestly applied label ‘antichrist(s)’. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.