Posted on 07/22/2007 7:40:38 PM PDT by xzins
See post 7,018.
He (Paul) was among those who felt that the elect were allowed to boast
Good grief
Here again, the word boast can mean "joy" or "rejoice". When it does mean "glory", Paul says to give all the glory to God, as Alamo-Girl has so eloquently stated.
Lately a day doesn’t pass that I don’t find more cohesion and certitude in Scripture. Life’s too short. 8~)
Next to Christ, who is more eloquent in presenting God's truth and joy and comfort and hope to men than Paul?
The fact that God chose the baddest of the bad to become His greatest human voice is enough to make me a believer. No man could change that much. It must be the work of God alone.
"But he that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord." -- 2 Corinthians 10:17
8 All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast--all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world. 9 He who has an ear, let him hear. 10 If anyone is to go into captivity, into captivity he will go. If anyone is to be killed with the sword, with the sword he will be killed. 10 This calls for patient endurance and faithfulness on the part of the saints.
The revelation proclaims CERTITUDE to those living on the earth during this trial....however one view the timing of the trial.
If I know that I will not die until 2010, then 2008 and 2009 can be extremely free of any care whatsover.
Captivity & Sword are predetermined this scripture says. You can't change it; might as well go out preaching the gospel.
Yes, in some beliefs words of scripture can mean anything one wants them to mean.
Concerning certitude and Paul:
For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it: And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.
But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called [me] by his grace, To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother. – Galatians 1:11-19
So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase. – I Cor 3:1-7
As Dr. Eckleburg quoted it:
Absolutely right. The persecution was wrong and should never have occurred.
Why is it that RC's are so reluctant to acknowledge the terrible deeds their sect did in the name of JESUS? I've seen RC posters proclaiming that it was good they persecuted those that refused to submit to their sects authority and I have yet to see a RC rebuke them for it.
x>I’m not the one who calls sinners to repentance, kosta. That would be Jesus. You need to take this one up with Him
Christ did not say: "believe anything you like; as long as you call on My name it's okay."
6,975 posted on 09/21/2007 10:32:22 PM MDT by kosta50
But Yah'shua did say:
shalom b'shem Yah'shua
NAsbU John 15:10
"If you keep My commandments,
you will abide in My love;
just as I have kept My Father's commandments
and abide in His love.
Amen A-G. We have nothing to offer that He has not provided.
He may be an authority in the Orthodox Church, but he is no authority in Judaism. Jewish Encyclopedia says (emphases mine) ......
There is no doubt that many Jews in those days had unsound theology. We are told about some of them in the Bible. But there is no way you can pin this on the OT righteous, the OT doesn't teach it. You can say that many Jews had it wrong at the time. The bottom line is that your church and my church both agree on the issue.
[Jewish Encyclopedia:] This view is also retained in Zech. iii. 1-2, where Satan is described as the adversary of the high priest Joshua, and of the people of God whose representative the hierarch is; and he there opposes the "angel of the Lord," who bids him be silent in the name of God. In both of these passages Satan is a mere accuser who acts only according to the permission of the Deity.
Zech 3:1-2 : 3:1 Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right side to accuse him. 2 The Lord said to Satan, "The Lord rebuke you, Satan! The Lord, who has chosen Jerusalem, rebuke you! Is not this man a burning stick snatched from the fire?"
The natural interpretation of this would have satan correctly being an enemy of God. There were strained and wrongful interpretations, but I'm sure the OT righteous had it right. For anyone to say that this passage has satan being a "mere accuser" is ridiculous.
So, the teaching of the Church and of the Protestants regarding Satan is patently "apocryphal." Just remember that by accepting the NT, you also accept its "apocryphal" demonology even if you as a group reject the "Apocrypha."
We reject the Apocrypha as being inspired, and so they should not be included with the Holy Bible. Nobody says they are useless or "all lies" or something. Luther himself prefaced the Apocrypha with this statement:
In addition, The Bible itself sans Apocrypha is patently clear that satan is evil. I certainly didn't need the Apocrypha to come to the correct conclusion.
Church government.
Ok. I pick chiliasm. :) Knock yourself out.
Calvin considered the chiliasts' errors too childish even to need refutation because they were without scriptural support. - The Reformation's Repudiation of Chiliasm
I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Perhaps you could post a reference?
I'm sure you don't.
“It may not be as simple as I’ve portrayed, but it is surely accurate.”
No, I’d say you had simplified it to the point of inaccuracy, which surprises me since you have by far the deepest knowledge of Orthodoxy among the Protestants on this thread.
You said THAT I was wrong, but you did not say why. I do not base my opinion on hundreds of hours of pouring through Apostolic documents. I base it on hundreds of hours of reading posts from you guys! :) I thought I was being fair.
I said that in your theology Jesus finished nothing since man has the ultimate power to lose his salvation and win it back again. I know that the Orthodox really don't speak of it in those terms, but the Latins do. So, I said that for you Christ laid the groundwork, but it's up to you to complete the deal. What's incorrect about that?
I have had it explained to me that for you Christ's work on the cross is applied at baptism (usually infant), and of course no one has committed any sins by then. So, it must normally refer to whatever one's version of original sin is. But ALL of you say that future sins are NOT covered by Christ's work. For you that is a separate issue. So, other than original sin, what sins of yours did Christ die to remit? If I sinned by offending you with my post, then did Christ die to forgive that sin? I think you would have to say "no". For that I would have to apologize to you (and I do if I did :) and I would have to confess to a priest and receive absolution for that sin. What has this to do with Jesus on the cross?
I have seen the question asked a hundred times: "do you believe that Jesus died on the cross to pay for all of our sins, past, present, and future?" The answer from your side is always "No".
“I said that in your theology Jesus finished nothing since man has the ultimate power to lose his salvation and win it back again. I know that the Orthodox really don’t speak of it in those terms, but the Latins do. So, I said that for you Christ laid the groundwork, but it’s up to you to complete the deal. What’s incorrect about that?”
Oh dear; probably you should have spent those hours pouring over Apostolic and patristic documents, FK! Christ finished man’s bondage to death and restored to man what was lost by the Sin of Adam, the potential to become divinized, to actually be a creature in the image and likeness of God. “Taking advantage” of that opportunity is up to us. Its available to everyone...like God’s grace.
I'm not sure it's a pagan name. The languages in which it is used all can make a word play on Sun/Son and East/Rising of the Sun/Resurrection of the Son.
Welcome back, Kolo. Much obliged.
Sure he did; He freed us from the bondage of death. He made it possible for us to be fully restored in the image and likeness of God (theosis).
His sacrifice applies to all whom are willing to come to Him, follow Him, and imitate Him.
But ALL of you [Catholic/Orthodox] say that future sins are NOT covered by Christ's work
They are, but we must repent of those sins in order for them to be forgiven. That's why we have the sacrament of confession.
If I sinned by offending you with my post, then did Christ die to forgive that sin? I think you would have to say "no".
Your sins are forgiven if you repent of them. Christ did not die on the cross for you to be free to sin, but to become free of sin. Unrepentant sins are not forgiven. Confession is a must.
For that I would have to apologize to you (and I do if I did :) and I would have to confess to a priest and receive absolution for that sin. What has this to do with Jesus on the cross?
Again, repentance is the key. But it seems alien to your mindset that you should repent of your sin in order for it to be forgiven. If you believe your sins are forgiven without repenting of them, then repentance becomes an "empty ritual," which may explain why the Protestants may not have such "guilty conscience," but rather consider themselves righteous in their justification that no amount of wrongdoing can affect.
I have seen the question basked a hundred times: "do you believe that Jesus died on the cross to pay for all of our sins, past, present, and future?" The answer from your side is always "No".
It is "No" if you don't repent.
Your comment on this is not in line with general commenatry. As an accuser, his job was to accuse, just as a prosecutor is charged to exaggerate the wrongdoing in order to strengthen the government's case. Satan merely got carried away and God put him in his place. But he is not portrayed as an enemy of God out there to compete with God or to draw those who are of God away from Him.
In addition, The Bible itself sans Apocrypha is patently clear that satan is evil. I certainly didn't need the Apocrypha to come to the correct conclusion.
Not the Old Testament. And all references form the New Testament that involve satan as the devil come from "Apocrypha."
Why is it that Protestants are so reluctant to acknowledge the terrible deeds their sect did in the name of Jesus?
I believe it was you who began casting stones inside of the glass house, brother. The Pope has apologized to the Jews and to Protestants who were persecuted by overzealous men in the name of the Church. Where is the Protestant apology?
Oh, well, considering that there is no central "mouthpiece" for this group of people, I suppose we won't hear any apology, will we? Does that mean you can go around and blame the Catholics for all of the evil perpetrated in the name of Christ?
Regards
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.