Posted on 03/30/2002 7:53:37 PM PST by malakhi
| Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams |
Yes. And I understand why you believe what you do. But it is a flawed understanding that may happen to work for some people. It's like you're accidentally taking the wrong turn, but you end up getting to the destination anyway. Many who take the wrong turn get hopelessly lost.
SD
Not sorry in the least. It just reminds me what it was like to love a Mac and hate MS. These days, I laugh at the former and put up with the latter.
No, because it comes out like this:
"Wrigley believes that God wants everyone but him and a select few others to go to hell and burn in endless agony forever."
Now if I represented that as your view to a third party who didn't know your views, would you try to clarify it?
You are saying that there is no separation between faith and works. To attempt to separate the two is to attempt the impossible. However, when it comes to separating theology and works, you have no problem. Which brings me back to my whipping boy, theology is by nature, practical, else it is of no use. The most important theological statements I will make in my life are the ones I make through my actions. This is also true of Popes. So, you will admit that Popes are not "infallible" in areas of personal behavior, but are infallible in statements of doctrine.
To which I reply, it is impossible to separate the two, as much as it is impossible to separate works and faith.
Balderdash. Then you have admitted that it is impossible to teach that there is a perfection which we should strive for, since none can be perfect and demonstrate this.
You have also reduced all of revelation to behavior. Are you a disciple of Skinner?
There are those who teach and use words to express ideas. We can not learn all we need to know about God just be observing a believer. We can pick up habits and behaviors, but would remain ignorant of the motivations and thoughts needed for faith.
Isn't the point of Protestant Christianity that it is only our internal faith that saves us and not our practices and actions? Then someone who aped anothers actions but knew nothing of faith would still go to hell.
Is that what you want?
No, we must use words and phrases and concepts to teach, and we must have an ideal of perfection that none can follow. And God has blessed us with a system whereby the pope can speak on matters faith without erring, even though he is a sinner.
Sometimes we have to talk, and hypocrisy is ever-present as a testimony to our imperfection. But given the choice of holding a standard in words that can not be met in practice or lowering our standards to meet our practices, I choose the former.
SD
You continue to try to redirect attention away from your own "nastiness". Perhaps someone who makes jokes about "the Pope Piel Porta-Purger" should not be so quick to find offense in someone else's humor.
I agree. If they are truly saved.
SD
SD
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me;
and I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand.
My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. (John 10:27-29)
Dave, how do you understand this passage? To my reading, it pretty clearly supports the OSAS position.
No answer, I see.
He also said that works and fruits can appear the same, except one is motivated by the HS and the other isn't.
It appears that you are attempting to misrepresent my statements (again). Repeating the same misrepresentation does not change what I originally stated. I did not state that works were bad nor did I state that works and fruits can appear the same.
Yes, you basically did. Let's look at the evidence.
I have no idea where you arrived at the idea I stated works were/are bad. I specifically stated, "Salavation is through faith, not works. Works are a product of salavation. Salvation is not a product of works."
Fair enough. When I said that "works" are bad, I meant works done to attempt to save oneself, without God. I thought that was the distinction you were making between "works" and "Fruit." Weren't you?
; "Good works can be imitated by those who are not Christian, so one shouldn't just a person by their works, but by their fruit."
So you are making some type of distinction between imitation, non-Christian "good works" (What I said you called "works") and good, genuine, Christian "works" (What I said you were calling "fruit.") Where have I misrepresented what you are saying?
(post 64117) I also stated, "The effects of both (works and fruit) may be the same in outward appearance. However, fruit comes through the Holy Spirit and through no effort of our own. Works, on the other hand, come through a conscious effort of man." (post 64153)
Again, you say that the "effects" may be the same in outward apearance. So I asked how we are to judge which is which if the "effects of both" may be the "same in outward appearance."
This question has still not been answered.
How do we know, if the effects of either are the same outwardly, which is "through the Holy Spirit" and which come "through the conscious effort of man"? I await the answer.
(Also, are you then saying that "fruits" are not the product of the conscious effort of man, that you are in effect unconscious and effortless while doing such thing?)
So I asked how we are supposed to judge if we can't tell the difference without knowing what is motivating a person.
John 7:14-36 addresses that issue.
Does it? Can you specify what part answers my question about how you tell what motivates outward appearances that are similar?
I dont' expect you to answer it, cause it isn't your words.
Would you mind stating to whom those words belong? I have shown they are not mine.
I was addressing Becky, telling her she did not have any obligation to try to explain your words. I have shown here exactly what you said and you do indeed own the words and need to explain them.
SD
When you combine that passage with the verse you cited (1 John 5:13), it makes a very strong case for OSAS. Any refutation of OSAS has to account for these sorts of passages.
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.