Posted on 12/10/2013 5:23:53 AM PST by CynicalBear
That would be a personal responsibility issue wouldn’t it?
Verga, I’m not sure which snarky comment I responded to. I was asking about a verse that has never made sense to me.
That particular verse SEEMS to be an anomaly, which means I’m probably not getting it. The verse in question taken literally as translated SEEMS to say that Jesus’ suffering is inadequate and that Paul’s suffering was to make up for that shortage.
That doesn’t match anything Paul or anyone else writes.
I look for “discrepancies” and “errors” when I read the Bible. First, I trust the Bible will defend itself and its not going to fall apart because I probe into so called errors. In my experience I will discover that (1) I don’t understand the passage in question, either due to translation difficulties or cultural differences or my own inadequacy or (2) I don’t really understand what I think I know about the scripture I think this passage conflicts with or (3) it’s a mystery of God that I have to accept, like there is one God and He is three. Or like the lamb was slain before the foundation of the world, yet He died during the Roman occupation of Jerusalem.
If i responded to a snarky comment, i dont know which one. I went back through the ping list and I don’t see that. There are lots of such in this thread, but I don’t see where I responded to one. Frankly, I hate those posts in religious threads.
I hope I haven’t offended you somehow. If I have I assure you it was unintentional. I am very serious about my walk with God and about Bible study. I respect and honor any Christian who is genuinely pursuing truth. Even those I disagree with.
IIRC I entered this discussion because Cynicalbear had posted a transliteration of the Colossians verse in post 72. He said the order of the words indicates Paul does NOT say that his suffering makes up for Jesus not suffering enough. I asked him to explain that, being I am not literate in Greek. I want to make sure I get a good understanding of this for other discussions. I explained I have read many discourses on this passage and have never found a satisfactory exegesis on it.
I have said my peace, and I will pray for you.
Of course. Isn't that what this article is about ?
Immediate and larger context, and seek to go wherever the truth leads, Scripture compared with Scripture. What is theologically stated is that in conversion faith is counted for righteousness, versus merit (Rm. 4:4-6) and by believing one is forgiven, having hearts purified by faith, (Acts 10:43ff; 15:7-9) for "with the heart man believes unto righteousness," yet "with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." (Rm. 10:10)
And as said, there is essentially no difference btwn confessing the Lord Jesus by moving one's tongue versus moving on's legs to be baptized, or for that matter moving neurons in one's brain to believe on the Lord Jesus. All are volitional responses, enabled by God who also moves man to do so. But which does not constitute salvation by works, as while a response is involved, these do not earn one salvation, and in fact what man has earned is damnation.
What if one believed and immediately died before he could manifestly confess the Lord Jesus? He would still be saved as it is the faith that results in confession that appropriates justification. But since faith and confession go together (as seen in Rm. 10:1-14) the former begetting the latter, and as true confession requires saving faith, thus the promise can be made that "whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." (Romans 10:13) Likewise Acts 2:38. For this is essentially the same thing as saying, "For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed." (Romans 10:11)
Likewise in countering the idea that a dead, inert faith justifies, it can be described "how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only," that meaning by the kind of faith that produces works. Yet if James means that one cannot be justified until he manifests works, then Cornelius and household were not justified when they were born again, nor can there be any death bed conversions by those unable to do manifest works.
For as an inert salving faith is in contradiction to Scripture, so is salvation that excludes justification by faith until he does manifest works. Yet to refuse to obey what faith calls us to do is a denial of faith, which a practicing believer repents from when convicted. For to repent of such disobedience is evidence of faith. And there is a difference btwn sinning as a believer seeking to live according to the light he has ,and who thus repents when convicted of sin, versus one who has wickedly departed from his Lord "in departing from the living God." (Heb. 3:12) Thus even after David's adultery and first degree murder, he could say, "For I have kept the ways of the Lord, and have not wickedly departed from my God." (2 Samuel 22:22)
Sir, it was not a snarky comment. Your short original answer gave the strong impression that Paul (and we) must make up something lacking. And the “lacking” you attributed to Jesus Christ. Perhaps your statement was incomplete, which leads others to fill in the blanks.
Feel free to have the last word.
My last word will be to offer you another chance to explain the verse you somewhat addressed.
Thanks
I loved Vincent Price. Great actor. And the Catholic Church is growing not losing members like the majority of protestant faiths.
If salvation were dependent upon something more than the work of Christ on the Cross, such as additional suffering by others, then the Resurrection of our Lord and Savior would prove God’s Holiness, comprised of His Perfect Justice facing His Perfect Righteousness, isn’t immutable.
Accordingly, such a blasphemous conclusion disproves the notion our salvation is dependent upon suffering in addition to Christ’s Work on the Cross. His work is finished in providing for our salvation in the Judgment of all sins of the whole world, then later a simple exercise of faith alone in Christ alone allows for forgiveness.
"Vincent Price: American actor. Converted to Catholicism to marry his third wife, Australian actress Coral Browne. (She became an American citizen for him.) He reportedly lost interest in the faith after her death."[236]
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.