Posted on 12/04/2006 7:52:47 PM PST by Pyro7480
Yes, I agree. There can be no relationship without communication, and there can be no communication without prayer.
Then Jesus told his disciples a parable to show them that they should always pray and not give up!
Great parable for this subject. :) God actively WANTS us to pray to Him. He is not indifferent about prayer.
OK, I gotcha. We agree.
But my impression is that the noticing is accompanied by at least a momentary flash of something that I use words like "endorsement", "choice", and "will" to describe. (Of course I myself am far too pure for this ever to have happened to me, I know this only by extensive research done to benefit humanity and glorify God.)
AMEN! ME TOO! WHAT YOU SAID! :)
I think that's a sin, though venial. It is as it were lust of the eyes in the third degree, more analogous to accidental homicide than to murder one ...
Yes, I fully agree that somewhere there is a line that is easy to cross. And, Biblically it is clear that some sins are worse than others.
IS that any more plausible?
Yes, it is. And this isn't really a big deal point of contention I have with the RCC. You guys believe that real sin should be recognized and confessed. All good.
So I went to a place where lovely young ladies (see the discourse immediately preceding this one) made me do exercises to grow stronger so I could use [my arm and shoulder] properly, put hot and cold wraps on them and anointed them with exotic oils -- and sometimes made me lie on the table and hurt me so much it was all I could do not to cry out!
Yeah, well when I dislocated my shoulder they FROZE it and electrocuted it every time I went in for rehab. I didn't get no young lovelies and I didn't get no oils. What a rip! :) But I'm glad you're better now.
All prayer is communication, but not all communication is prayer. Communication is just a broader category, not a lesser one.
So, you are a Christian only if you pray?
All Christians pray, but not all prayer is Christian. I'm on a roll here. :)
Sanctification doesn't depend on prayer.
So do you believe that there can be a true believer, who goes through his life never praying to God, and nevertheless go to Heaven? I don't think that is possible. Part of the fruit of true belief is wanting to talk to our God. That comes built in with the faith that God gives us. If someone tries to manufacture his own faith, like many liberals do, then he might not pray, but neither is he a Christian.
FK: "Why do you pray then?"
My theology is different than yours. In my theology, prayer makes sense. In your (Reformed) theology it doesn't.
OK, so the reason you pray then, is that in your theology it makes sense. I see ...... I think.
+Paul on the way to Damascus did not pray when he was struck.
Sure he did. :) After the flash of light and voice from nowhere, Paul immediately says: "Who are you, Lord?" (Acts 9:5). That is a prayer. Paul asked what the name of God was here. If a man had just walked up to him he might have said: "Who are you"? But with the accouterments, it seems more likely he knew he was addressing God.
Prayer does take us to God, but our sanctification (our degree of living the faith) is not "bought" with prayer. It has to do with how much we are willing to cooperate with the HS.
You simply list two different types of purchases. I disagree with both. I suppose it only follows that if man determines his own salvation, through cooperation, then the same would be true for sanctification, under your view. We are equally as consistent by saying that God also accomplishes our sanctification with all credit going to Him.
But you tell me that you are already saved (whether you pray or not, whether you go to church or not, whether you commit adultery or not)!
No, that is your very incomplete paraphrase of what I have said. While God never loses a true believer (true in scripture but not in Apostolic theology), He also actively prevents any such person from falling far enough away to cost him his salvation. That is the part you always conveniently leave out.
FK: "So, I ask myself whether you think thanksgiving is part of proper prayer."
No. It is part of what we do/say as we get ready for supplication.
Well, at least we've gotten down to the bottom of it. :) I consider everything including and in between "Dear Heavenly Father" and "Amen" to be part of prayer. I think that prayer, as a part of worship, should include praise and thanksgiving. Perhaps we see the following differently:
1 Thess 5:16-18 : 16 Be joyful always; 17 pray continually; 18 give thanks in all circumstances, for this is God's will for you in Christ Jesus.
---------------
Then why thank Him then? It really didn't matter if you ran into the neighbor or not. Either way it would have been "God's will."
Yes, but it makes a difference to me. Of course it's not all the time, but sometimes, my wishes DO match what God wants. When that happens it is easy to give thanks. As I mature, I learn to give thanks even for things that do not match my wishes. That is more difficult.
But you said you are certain of your salvation, so how can you sound so confused?
When I pray about the neighbor in the hypo, it has nothing to do with salvation. I'm certain of my salvation, but I'm not certain that I won't come down with cancer tomorrow. The former cannot go either way, but the latter could. Therefore, no confusion.
Because you make it sound that way. Quote: "He owes me nothing, but when something goes my way I give Him thanks."
By your reasoning, if I said I like "green", you would conclude I do not like "blue". The fact is I only gave an opinion about green and said nothing at all about blue. That's what you are doing, and that's what I meant when I said it wasn't fair. In this case, in my original statement, I said nothing at all about what I do in the thanks department when things do not go my way, all I said is that when they DO go my way I give thanks. As I alluded to above, I do not always give thanks for things that hurt, but sometimes I do. I believe part of my sanctification will be improving upon the ratio as I mature under His guidance.
May our beloved God have mercy and provide comfort on his servants and accept their souls in His Kingdom.
Thank you my friend. Much appreciated.
FK, all I can hope for is for God to hear my prayers, even though I don't deserve Him.
Don't worry, if your heart is right with God He will always hear you, although sometimes He says "no" or "wait":
Ps 4:3 : Know that the Lord has set apart the godly for himself; the Lord will hear when I call to him.
Ps 34:15 : The eyes of the Lord are on the righteous and his ears are attentive to their cry; ...
---------------
I am sorry that your sense of reverence allows God to be your "buddy."
LOL! Oh, it's not that bad. I can't think of a single time where I have referred to Jesus as "The Most Holy Dudemeister". :) All I'm saying is that I think God wants to have a personal relationship with us, and in that personal relationship I should and do feel free to completely open myself up to Him. I feel like I can tell Him anything and everything and He will understand. I don't think that brings God down at all.
You don't sound anything like your theology, FK. For if you believed your theology of double predestination you would be letting God drive and you could sleep, safe and sound, and not have a worry on your mind.
I do let God drive, but in practice only mostly, not fully. Shame on me. Maybe if my faith was fully developed I wouldn't have a care in the world, but I'm not there yet. :) I know that I worry less than most people, but I'm not done growing yet. I still have plenty of faults. Intellectually, I know that all of my petty earthly concerns are pointless, but that isn't always so easy to put into practice.
God laughs?
Well, while I think that God DOES have a sense of humor, I meant that I laugh in His presence within prayer. Almost always, it is at myself, so I imagine that He laughs too. :)
If we truly believed with all our heart, mind and soul, we would only give God thanks and never ask for anything.
At first, that sounded pretty reasonable, but then I thought of verses like these:
1 John 5:14-15 : 14 This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us. 15 And if we know that he hears us — whatever we ask — we know that we have what we asked of him.
John 16:23-24 : 23 In that day you will no longer ask me anything. I tell you the truth, my Father will give you whatever you ask in my name. 24 Until now you have not asked for anything in my name. Ask and you will receive, and your joy will be complete.
Do not these and other passages tell us that if we have a pure heart we can have anything we want? These appear to encourage a fully mature Christian to ask for things.
Not really. The Spirit leads different people along different paths toward the same end. On the most core issues we still agree. That must be the work of the Spirit. You contend that ALL of the truth is found among the writings of a precious few men you have chosen to follow. That is fine. I think other men have read the scriptures in a truer light, because their views match the text better, so I give more consideration to those writings. That should also be fine, but it isn't with you because you, i.e. your Church, claim monopoly. I do not for the writers I like, but I do for the scriptures themselves. I think all needed truth can be found in the scriptures, as opposed to in men.
You must have forgotten our discussions on free will and grace...
If I have, then I regret it. I remember that you and the Orthodox have an issue about grace, but since you're not in communion I don't know if we could count that. In any event, my use of "great importance" was probably too squishy, so it could well have been an overstatement.
FK: "But in any event, the topic we were discussing was whether the Holy Spirit leads people to read the Bible, and to what level reading the Bible is helpful to the Christian."
You are changing your argument, FK. You are taking up a "new" argument that I will not disagree with. ...... Your previous argument was that the Spirit leads people to understand the Bible and God's Word, with or without the Church's aid - and as people read the Bible, they grow in holiness, which enables them to understand the book that much more.
Well, all of those things were part of the discussion. When I said "in any event" that was dependent on your response, which I now have. If that wasn't what you meant, etc., OK. I would clarify a point about your framing, though. I said that the Spirit leads "Christians", as opposed to "people", to understand the Bible better. In addition, I think that God's Church may be very helpful in this. I obviously do not believe the help of the RCC is necessary for spiritual development in most cases. However, it is certainly true that the early Fathers had the most important things right.
So understanding your own fallibility, what argument are you going to show me that you are more knowledgeable then 2000 years worth of preaching and meditating on the Word of God?
I don't even claim to have more knowledge than the Fathers. I just look at the scriptures and see that their interpretation, in many cases, doesn't match the text at all.
So, I say to myself that either one of two things is true. Either, (1) the Bible was written in comparative gibberish, only decipherable to a select few, unelected fallible men in the hierarchy, across time, and that God's word was designed purposefully to be unattainable to me personally, but only through what these men told me to believe, effectively splitting my faith between God and these men since I am also dependent on them for my salvation. And, that the millions who have access to scripture but not to men of the Church are as good as lost with a useless document to them. OR, (2) that these very well-meaning men started to get it wrong at some point and drifted away from sole fidelity to God and gave greater weight to other interests, as all fallible humans can fall prey to.
Now, under the first choice, I really cannot have a personal relationship with God because everything has to go through a middle man first, in effect. What I have to believe is that God really truly wanted men with absolute power to rule over me spiritually. When I look at the text of scripture I see that God wanted just the opposite, so number (1) does not look good to me. OTOH, to agree with the second choice, all I have to do is make the bold accusation that all of your hierarchs were and are human beings, all with human failings, all born as sinners. In addition, I have to believe that God is able and willing to handle His Church here on earth without the help of men. Is He powerful enough, will He lead me or can only men do it, etc.?
Well, after reading some scripture, and given the fact that I did not grow up in any church, you can imagine which option sounds more attractive to me. :) I DO want a personal and close relationship with God. Just Him. No angels, no saints, no departed relatives, or anyone else who isn't on earth. I want 100% of my Heavenly love to be focused on just ONE.
And saying that the Spirit leads you to understand the Bible's individual verses is obviously a false argument, because you have admitted that you do not have a global understanding of the Scriptures, and you have also admitted that you have been wrong before.
No, as a fallible human being I am capable of misapprehending the Spirit's teaching. It's even possible that the Spirit wanted it that way FOR A TIME, in order for greater understanding to come later. I grow. Does the RCC grow? Does the RCC right now have every single truth of the Bible down stone cold? Has it always? You see, it's really very close to the same. We both believe the Spirit leads, it's just a matter of whom, how, and why.
It is you that is ignoring the Word of God, now The Bible over and over again speaks of righteous people. We must view Romans 3 with that in mind, unless you want to say that the Bible contradicts itself.
Biblically, it is obvious that "righteous" does not equal "sinless", at least for humans. Much of scripture would have to be re-written for that to be true, and no doubt has been within the Magisterium. There are several verses that reference all of us as sinners, with no exception for Mary or any other human. I have seen a few techniques used to get around situations like this, (i.e. when the Catholic position is cornered against the text), including yours here that the scope of a plain statement is limited by a tortured reference, and I have also seen the old "the speaker was only talking to THOSE GUYS" ploy used in several places. I will say they are very creative, but not very persuasive. :)
I am brekaing up this thread into smaller pieces as it is becomming too long. I believe it is easier to follow and anwer that way.
_________________________________
All prayer is communication, but not all communication is prayer. Communication is just a broader category, not a lesser one.
One way communication is not communication, FK. A monologue, especially when it is effectively begging, hardly qualifies as communication. Maybe God talks back to you to make it communication, as the two of you discuss baseball scores :), but that's not been my experience. I am very mistrustful of people claiming that god talks to them.
So do you believe that there can be a true believer, who goes through his life never praying to God, and nevertheless go to Heaven?
According to the Reformed theology yes, very much so. Prayer is not a coniditio sine qua non of salvation.
I don't think that is possible. Part of the fruit of true belief is wanting to talk to our God. That comes built in with the faith that God gives us.
A true believer should never ask for anything. If you trust God then you have no reason to. He provides for everyone in ways He sees fit. And if you are Reformed that should be particularly obvious and true because all that shall happen to you and the world has been determined and will happen exactly as God wants is, your prayers notwithstanding.
OK, so the reason you pray then, is that in your theology it makes sense. I see ...... I think.
Yes, we believe very much so that God intercedes in our lives and that our cooperation is a guided tour. God leads us to salvation, but we are free to jump the ship, so praying that God grant us wisdom and strength and prudence is very sensible.
After the flash of light and voice from nowhere, Paul immediately says: "Who are you, Lord?" (Acts 9:5). That is a prayer.
So, every hallucination is a prayer? He had no idea what that was. How could he pray to something unknown?
This reviewer is much more accurate in the spirit of the movie. Being raised half-Catholic and half-Baptist has been interesting. I find that I do not cling to the limited or dogmatic views of either and can embrace the values in both with ease. Maybe it was a virgin birth too... maybe adam didn’t have a belly button. Maybe infant baptism works. Maybe not any of the above.
What does any of it have to do with Grace and Salvation?
With all due respect and in literal seriousness... Not a “damned” thing.
I am brekaing up this thread into smaller pieces as it is becomming too long. I bedlieve it is easier to follow and anwer that way.
_________________________________
I suppose it only follows that if man determines his own salvation, through cooperation, then the same would be true for sanctification, under your view.
Lack of cooperation leads to damnation by our fallen nature as we will follow evil. Those who cooperate with God will not be lost; those who don't will. We do not determine, but we do participate in our process of sanctification. God doesn't lead us astray, but in order for God to lead us we must follow Him. Otherwise it's not being led but dragged.
While God never loses a true believer (true in scripture but not in Apostolic theology), He also actively prevents any such person from falling far enough away to cost him his salvation. That is the part you always conveniently leave out.
It's left out because it's not part of the faith. Your theology is based on +Paul's own gospel. Ours is based on the whole Bible. I say that not to disparage +Paul but because it wasn't taught by any other Apostle. Nor the OT.
I consider everything including and in between "Dear Heavenly Father" and "Amen" to be part of prayer.
Yes, it is, and it is also a supplication (hear me O Lord!), because what follows is not "So, how's is heaveny life treating you..." but something to the effect "grant my such and such health and success..." or "thank you for having provided me and my family with blesisngs..." It's begging.
I think that prayer, as a part of worship, should include praise and thanksgiving. Perhaps we see the following differently:
1 Thess 5:16-18 : 16 Be joyful always; 17 pray continually; 18 give thanks in all circumstances, for this is God's will for you in Christ Jesus.
God should always be praised. Even when bad things happen to us. They happen to us not because of God but because of the corruption our sin brought to the world.
The Orthodox are encouraged to contstantly pray the Jesus Prayer "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me the sinner." Notice here the definite articlre. It is there for a reason. We believe that continual prayer is the best way to avoid evil. We believe that those who pray do not sin while they pray (in ernest), as they are in communion (not "communication") with God. That communion is a siritual experience and not "communication." It is...
the spiritual ascent into the Divine abyss where words fall silent, where reason fades, where all human knowledge and comprehension cease, where God is. It is not by speculative knowledge but in the depths of prayerful silence that the soul can encounter God, Who is ‘beyond everything’ and Who reveals Himself to her as in-comprehensible, in-accessible, in-visible, yet at the same time as living and close to her - as God the Person. [Archbishop Alfeyev Introduction to Orthodox Dogma and Spirituality, Catechism of the Russian Orthodox Church
So what you call "communication" we consider an experience where human reason is left behind, where words fall silent and mind ceases to comprehend as our spirit ascends to God.
His salvation is there for anyone and not all that believe in Christ are the elect. Wouldn't He hear the prayers of those that believed in Him? - (Mark 16:16)He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
I'm not sure you are trying to say this, but I don't think that Paul is saying here that anyone is of the elect by birthright. Paul would completely contradict this idea in passages such as:
No, that wasn't what I meant. The verses you quoted (Gal 3:26-29), I believe, just means those that accept Christ - they are not necessarily the "elect" but they do become part of the family of Christ.
The elect are not just those that believe in Christ but are forordained, predestinated, justified, called to His purpose and glorified. (Rom.8:28-30)
They are the 7,000 mentioned in Romans 11:4 -
But what saith the answer of God unto him? "I have reserved to Myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal."
The number 7 means spiritual completeness, so that 7,000 could mean as many as God wishes it to be, or it could mean literally 7,000. Personally, I believe it is much more. They are different than the others. They have a destiny in the end of days, which (I believe) the verse you quoted refers to:
1Peter 1:5.Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
I think the other verse you quoted also refers to the same thing - Phil 1:6 : ... being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.
I think there certainly can be/is earthly punishment and correction for sins we commit after belief/salvation. However, I do not think the failure to repent for those sins jeopardizes our saved status. Jesus died for ALL of our sins once and for all:
I agree with that, in that it "doesn't jeopardize our saved status", but I wonder, if not repented for, would there be some repercussion on a celestial level?
I am brekaing up this thread into smaller pieces as it is becomming too long. I bedlieve it is easier to follow and anwer that way.
_________________________________
When I pray about the neighbor in the hypo, it has nothing to do with salvation. I'm certain of my salvation, but I'm not certain that I won't come down with cancer tomorrow.
Why does that matter? A true believer should not worry about sickness or death. If we truly believe "Thy will be done" then what happens to us is God's just decision, and on His time.
Don't worry, if your heart is right with God He will always hear you, although sometimes He says "no" or "wait" Ps 4:3, Ps 34:15...
That's why I said many posts ago that God hears only those prayers made in in good intent. But God knows your needs and wishes whether you say them, or think them, or if you say and think nothing. He knowns what's in your heart. However, prayer is the right approach, because we must submit to God and never be proud and arrogant to think that we are His "buddies," that we somehow deserve rewards, or – as is often the case – that we are gods ourselves.
I do let God drive, but in practice only mostly, not fully. Shame on me.
Shame on all of us, FK. You are not alone. But do I detect a ray of free will in your statement? Or would you say that you don't let Him be in charge because He wants it so? Like I said, your theology does not seem to correspond to how you describe your faith, which seems very Apostolic to me.
Maybe if my faith was fully developed I wouldn't have a care in the world, but I'm not there yet.
True for all of us.
I know that I worry less than most people, but I'm not done growing yet. I still have plenty of faults. Intellectually, I know that all of my petty earthly concerns are pointless, but that isn't always so easy to put into practice.
As a Greek Orthodox Priest said in Orlando a month ago: "Welcome to the club!" :)
Well, while I think that God DOES have a sense of humor, I meant that I laugh in His presence within prayer. Almost always, it is at myself, so I imagine that He laughs too.
God never laughs at you or anyone else for that matter. I hope you laugh at yourself not almost always, but always. Don't laugh at others.
At first, that sounded pretty reasonable, but then I thought of verses like these: 1 John 5:14-15 : 14, John 16:23-24 : 23
The operant words are "according to His will." That depends on our intent, which is almost never pure.
Do not these and other passages tell us that if we have a pure heart we can have anything we want? These appear to encourage a fully mature Christian to ask for things.
Yes, but he doesn'tr need to. A fully mature Christian has everyhing he could possibly want. The saint is too busy unceasingly praying for others.
Really? So when a Jehovah Witness claims to be led by the "spirit" that Jesus is not God, he is actually being led to the same end as a "orthodox" Christian? Or a Catholic? Hardly. It appears that you consider doctrine and beliefs inconsequential to our salvation. One can believe whatever they want, as long as in the end, we believe in "God", whatever that might mean to the individual.
I remember that you and the Orthodox have an issue about grace, but since you're not in communion I don't know if we could count that.
We don't have any issues with the Orthodox concerning grace and free will. Recall that Kosta and Kolo were saying the same things that we were, despite our 1000 year separation. That speaks volumes about the Apostolic Churches.
However, it is certainly true that the early Fathers had the most important things right.
Such as the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the Sacrifice of the Mass, the veneration of Mary and the saints in the next life, the concept of grace and free will, the interplay of faith and love, etc....? Again, you are setting yourself as the guidepost while I set others as the guide post interpreters... That is our big difference.
I don't even claim to have more knowledge than the Fathers. I just look at the scriptures and see that their interpretation, in many cases, doesn't match the text at all.
Big mistake. You mean to say "MY INTERPRETATION of the text". You are making the claim that YOU KNOW the interpretation of "unless you eat my body and drink my blood, you shall not have life within". Thus, you deny the Eucharistic real presence - NOT because it is not in the text, but because you don't agree with the Church's INTERPRETATION of the text.
You are making the common mistake of claiming that you have inside information to what the text can ONLY mean. Really, texts can have different meanings - even "clear" ones as I have written above. When we have several meanings of one text side by side, which do we use? We OUGHT to use the one that has been passed down by the original teachers, don't you think? THEY were in a position to know the intent of John 6 much better than we of the 21 century removed from the Tradition of the Church can read it.
This is where I think Protestantism goes astray and doesn't even realize it. They judge the "text" by their own meaning without realizing that there are other meanings of the text that are viable, as well. You either can't see that or refuse to accept that. However, I can quite easily write a sentence and mean multiple things.
For example:
I didn't say he stole the money.
That can have a variety of meanings.
I could mean "I didn't say he stole the money - John said it".
I could mean "I didn't say he stole the money - I said he borrowed it".
And so forth. Such a simple sentence can have a multitude of meanings that only the author or someone in contact with the author would know. We presume that the Church has obtained and pass down this "meaning" as corrobarated by the Bible itself when Paul tells his communities to protect and hold onto the TRADITIONS passed down.
As to your two "choices", you establish a logical fallacy by giving us a faulty "either/or" situation. There are obviously other choices, otherwise, I couldn't type this and defend the Catholic point of view honestly. The Scriptures were not written in gibberish. However, I have demonstrated that written texts without access to the author's intent can deviate from the original notion. And of course, you presume because you disagree, that they must be wrong and you are right - although you refute yourself when you claim to be fallible... Thus, you give a faulty logical dilemna.
Well, after reading some scripture, and given the fact that I did not grow up in any church, you can imagine which option sounds more attractive to me. :) I DO want a personal and close relationship with God. Just Him. No angels, no saints, no departed relatives, or anyone else who isn't on earth. I want 100% of my Heavenly love to be focused on just ONE.
Until you learn to accept how God has revealed Himself to mankind, you are not going to have the greatest of relationship with Him. How could you? You question His ways... "How could you dare place people in authority over a community, giving these men ability to define beliefs?" Or "How could you have your followers highly venerate Your earthly mother? I don't want to..." What sort of relationship is this?
If you truly have faith in God, you will accept how God has revealed Himself - THROUGH men. God doesn't reveal Himself directly to you WITHOUT the Church.
Biblically, it is obvious that "righteous" does not equal "sinless", at least for humans. Much of scripture would have to be re-written for that to be true, and no doubt has been within the Magisterium.
Romans 3 says there is no one righteous. Not one. Do you think that Paul meant that literally? Consider his source - the OT - to get a clue of what he meant. I have already told you, but you refuse to hear because it destroys the whole concept of "totally evil man".
Regards
The Bible uses the word "hope" in at least two different ways. One is in the conventional sense of "I wish that". But the other, which is still an accepted use of the word today, involves a much stronger sense of certainty. For example:
Acts 26:5 : 6 And now it is because of my hope in what God has promised our fathers that I am on trial today.
Rom 5:5 : And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us.
Rom 15:13 : May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you trust in him, so that you may overflow with hope by the power of the Holy Spirit.
There are many others. But just in these, I really don't think the concept of "wish for" can be inserted for "hope". Do you think that Paul wishes that God will keep His promises, or is he sure of it? And, is our God the God of "wish for" or is He a God of certainty?
Take that out and see how many people come to church to declare His glory.
Maybe some people do, but I do not go to church to strengthen my "wish for" that God loves me or will keep His promises. I haven't needed that in a long time. I do need to worship Him and hear His word, among other things. But I really don't think I understand your underlying point. I do go to church, but it is not to obtain my salvation. If the world suddenly came to an understanding that salvation is not had by going to church, then I would still go to church. Is this what you are talking about?
Christ was fully human in that He hungered, thirsted, cried, could be tempted, etc. But, if He could have sinned, then He would not have been God, and He would have to be considered two persons inside of one body. I'm sure there is a heresy for that. :) Also, this view puts Jesus the human on the same level as Mary the human. I put Him higher than that.
I thought you agreed with me a long time ago that God cannot sin because there can be no absence of God, within God.
There was no serpent; there was only the temptation, the tree, and God put it there. The Bible calls the temptation the "serpent."
Well this is new. :) Was Eve talking to herself, or did that conversation never happen? Did the following conversation with God ever happen? How can you tell?
They sinned when they disobeyed. When given a chance to confess and repent, they blamed someone other that themselves.
But you said that the sin wasn't "sealed" until after they failed to repent. I was saying that the Fall was sealed when Adam sinned. It is immaterial to history whether he later repented, immediately or otherwise.
One can forgive it but you will never be a virgin again, unless you are born again as one. For that to happen, Christ had to come first.
So for you, none of the OT righteous were born again? And, in this case God is not timeless because Christ's sacrifice does not apply retroactively within time?
One way communication is not communication, FK.
What? Of course it can be either. When I send this post and you read it I have communicated to you. If you choose not to respond then I have still communicated to you. Does a communique cease to be a communique if it goes unanswered? Of course not. The response would be ANOTHER communique. And, BTW, the communication we have with God starting with prayer IS two-way because we are told that He answers our prayers, in some form. That is also communication. Of course He doesn't "pray back" to us, but He uses other methods to answer in communication. For example, we see the result of our prayer, one way or the other. That is communication.
FK: "So do you believe that there can be a true believer, who goes through his life never praying to God, and nevertheless go to Heaven?"
According to the Reformed theology yes, very much so. Prayer is not a coniditio sine qua non of salvation.
I also believe that perseverance is required. I can't imagine perseverance without prayer. By your fruits you shall be known. To me, under normal circumstances no prayer = no fruit.
A true believer should never ask for anything. If you trust God then you have no reason to. He provides for everyone in ways He sees fit. And if you are Reformed that should be particularly obvious and true because all that shall happen to you and the world has been determined and will happen exactly as God wants is, your prayers notwithstanding.
You are talking in theory and not in the real world. Many were called righteous and they were all still sinners. They also certainly asked for things. The Bible encourages true believers to come to God always with our petitions. So, we do. That's all I need to know. As I also said, this is the same logic that says Reformers shouldn't want to evangelize. Rubbish. It's not for us to decide whom is going to be saved, and it is not for us to decide which of our prayers will be answered favorably.
FK: "After the flash of light and voice from nowhere, Paul immediately says: "Who are you, Lord?" (Acts 9:5). That is a prayer."
So, every hallucination is a prayer? He had no idea what that was. How could he pray to something unknown?
Did Paul also hallucinate his blindness and conversion to follow Christ? The text tells us that he DID have an idea, and we are told what it was. We are not led to think that Paul thought it was a lightning bolt, or any other natural phenomena. He knew his idea of the Jewish God and obviously thought this was some manifestation of that God.
It sure seems to me that you are disparaging Paul when you say that his Biblical teachings are not part of the faith. :)
God should always be praised. Even when bad things happen to us. They happen to us not because of God but because of the corruption our sin brought to the world.
Yes, God should always be praised, even when things go badly. However, I don't think we can say that everything we perceive as bad is always caused by sin in the world. For example, I have been on job interviews before and really prayed hard to get the job. When it didn't happen, I experienced that as something bad. But then, one time a month later a much better job came along that I wouldn't have even applied for had I taken the first job. It all worked out for the best for me.
So what you call "communication" we consider an experience where human reason is left behind, where words fall silent and mind ceases to comprehend as our spirit ascends to God.
That does sound pretty complicated. :)
Gen.3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman "Yea, hath God said, 'Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden'?"
Rev.20:2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years.
The serpent is Satan, the Devil and he beguiled Adam and Eve - there was no apple! He wasn't a real snake, he wasn't just temptation, he wasn't just a tree. He was here at the beginning and he will be at the end.
I suppose we would honestly disagree here since there are so many verses that say simply that one who believes shall be saved, starting with the most famous verse.
The elect are not just those that believe in Christ but are foreordained, predestinated, justified, called to His purpose and glorified. (Rom.8:28-30) They are the 7,000 mentioned in Romans 11:4 -
LOL! I had to erase my original answer because I misunderstood you. This was my original opening: "If I am reading you correctly, you are saying that while all of the elect are saved, not all of the saved are the elect." But after more thought I don't think that's what you mean. I think instead what you mean is that one can be a true believer, but not be saved or of the elect. Now this sounds very similar to what you just told me in the first paragraph. The reason I bring all this up is that I didn't even notice that because this idea sounds so alien to me from a non-Apostolic. :) As I alluded to above, it is absolutely incomprehensible to me that God would ever turn His back (ultimately) on one who really has put his faith in Christ. In my view, there is too much scripture against that idea.
Are your views representative of a particular Christian faith (denomination)?
I agree with that, in that it "doesn't jeopardize our saved status", but I wonder, if not repented for, would there be some repercussion on a celestial level?
I hope I would not be one to complain if there is, but I wouldn't expect there to be. My view is that our justification for all sins within time was completed solely and fully by Christ on the cross. I see our repentance as being part of the faith that God gave us. So, while they are of course related, they are also distinguishable.
The idea of the satan (devil) as seen in Christian theology did not exist in Judaism when Genesis was written. In Judaism, satan is an obedient angel of God. The serpent is allegory for temptation.
The tree and its beautiful fruit is the temptation, and Eve's "conversation" with the Serpent is her inner self rationalizing that the fruit is really good and meet to eat, convincing herself that there is no reason why she shouldn't have it. We do this every day, against our better judgment.
[the serpent] was here at the beginning and he will be at the end
Yes, we will be tempted by things we shouldn't have all along. That's the nature of the physical world.
The Binle uses faith and hope in a very clear and concise manner, calling one the [inseparable] substance of the other.
So, when people worship in faith means they worship in hope. And, again, what is that hope? Life everlasting with God, as I said in my previous post. Take out that hope and people have nothing to have faith in and nothing to hope for!
So, being faithful is very much tied to getting and what's-in-it-for-me, and a lot less about worshiping God just because He is great. Take out the promise and see how many people come to church.
Maybe some people do, but I do not go to church to strengthen my "wish for" that God loves me or will keep His promises.
But you are not taking out the promise. To you faith is not "things hoped for," as the Bible says, but a bank check, sure to be cashed in. So, now that you are "sure" you are covered, there is no 'hope," but (unbiblical) certainty.
If the world suddenly came to an understanding that salvation is not had by going to church, then I would still go to church. Is this what you are talking about?
No, if the world came to an understanding that there is no salvation not matter what. It would make your faith an oxymoron, since you are saved by faith alone! Take out salvation, then what is faith?! If we have no hope or knowledge of a benefit to us by believing that God will deliver us, prayer and worship become meaningless.
It's not enough to just know God or something else created this world; we want that something to take care of us -- forever! Otherwise, God is just a Big Bang, cold and unapproachable. There is nothing to "believe in." So, who would go to church? Forest Keeper? To worship a Big Bang?
The central figure in our faith is the Savior! Deliverer. Rescuer. If people stranded in Texas floods did not believe rescue was coming to prevent them from drowning, you think they would be sitting on the roof hoping, believing the rescue is coming, and thanking God for sending them?
Our relationship with God is made in expectation, indeed guarantee in your case, that God will rescue you or has rescued you and that you shall live. No one worships God for just being God, FK. People are not that altruistic, even if they can convince themselves otherwise.
God knows what you want; there is no need for Him to hear it from you. You don't have to communicate to Him for Him to know that. This is like you telling me that you are married. I know that already! Communication should be meaningful and not stupid repetitions.
The most basic (dictionary) meaning of the word "to communicate" is to impart knowledge of; make known. My point is that we don't make anything known to God by praying; He already knows what we want or feel or intend.
And, BTW, the communication we have with God starting with prayer IS two-way because we are told that He answers our prayers, in some form. That is also communication
God's revelation to us is communication, as it imparts knowledge in us about God and His plan. But it is always a one-way process. He reveals to us what we don't know; we reveal nothing to Him He doesn't already know. So, our prayer is not communication, but supplication. We ask God for mercy, health, and so on. If you think about it, we do that because we are insecure. We want assurance, a sign. It comes from lack of faith. Our prayers should be nothing but giving thanks.
Did Paul also hallucinate his blindness and conversion to follow Christ?
Possibly. The account of that event exists in at least two different versions in the NT, so it is hard to tell which version is correct, or what exactly took place.
The Church position is that Protestant understanding of +Paul's teachings, and not +Paul's teachings, is faulty and out of context. There is very little doubt that +Paul's was a controversial Apostle and that his writings have been the subject of much debate and multiple interpretations, each claiming to be the "true" one.
However, I don't think we can say that everything we perceive as bad is always caused by sin in the world
Not getting a job you mention did not leave you stranded, starving, having to hunt to feed your family, did it? You simply didn't get what you wanted, so you perceived it as something bad. But God gently reminded you to accept things handed to you as He may have great rewards for you. "Thy will be done -- no matter what" is a difficult principle to live by. Yet, when we can truly say it in any situation and believe it we can probably say we have reach theosis.
Now, that being said, it is easy for us who have been blessed undeservingly, and sit in comforts of our homes typing away our own theological philosophy, safe and secure, not hungry or thirsty, and not sick, to say that. It is totally unrealistic expect those much less fortunate to feel as upbeat as we are.
Rather than patting each other on our backs, we should be doing works of charity and praying unceasingly that the world may come to the knowledge of the Savior of the world and to make themselves open to His love, to convert their hearts, that goodness and mercy may prevail, and the world made perfect in His name.
The reason there are people less fortunate than us is because of sin -- theirs and ours.
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.