Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."
Then what did you mean by this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmiej
Any & all sin separates us from God. He does not condone any of it.
To condone is to overlook, forgive, or disregard (an offense) without protest or censure. If you are still heavenbound even though you are engaged in sin, that must mean even that sin is forgiven, yes?
To condone is to overlook, forgive, or disregard (an offense) without protest or censure. If you are still heavenbound even though you are engaged in sin, that must mean even that sin is forgiven, yes?
Yes, if we believe in Christ's redemptive work on the cross, we are saved. Then, we are a "new creation", no longer a slave to sin. Why would a person remain in sin if they are now in Christ?
One can not understand the NT, unless one first reads and understands the OT.
Jesus Christ is the incarnation of the God of Israel. He is the same God, yesterday,
today and forever.
The New Testament says the Old Testament is "holy scripture" inspired by God,
our instruction manual for righteousness. And, rightfully so, because God's Law
is in the OT. God = Jesus. Jesus kept His Law perfectly, in spite of those evil
ones who put traditions of men above God's Law. Those who tried to trick Jesus
over and over again in matters of God's Law. Jesus was firmly grounded in God's
Law, as His people should be.
One can not understand the NT, unless one first reads and understands the OT.
Jesus Christ is the incarnation of the God of Israel. He is the same God, yesterday,
today and forever.
The New Testament says the Old Testament is "holy scripture" inspired by God,
our instruction manual for righteousness. And, rightfully so, because God's Law
is in the OT. God = Jesus. Jesus kept His Law perfectly, in spite of those evil
ones who put traditions of men above God's Law. Those who tried to trick Jesus
over and over again in matters of God's Law. Jesus was firmly grounded in God's
Law, as His people should be.
.
OK, I agree. Jesus did what we could not. He ransomed us. Faith makes us one with God.
I called Jesus' enemies who tried to trick Him in matters of God's Law, "evil ones",
because most of them were probably offspring of the evil one who God hated [Esau.]
Herod [who tried to murder the infant Christ] was the offspring of Esau [Edom.]
There is a huge historical undertow playing out in the NT. The importance of which
one can only understand via the OT. It explains why Jesus was born at that specific
time in history.
Over a century before Jesus, Israel defeated Edom in a war. Then Israel's prince
and high priest did something evil... something Israel never did before... he forced
Israel's enemy [God's enemy] Edom to "convert" and the Edomites became "jews."
This little bit of historical info puts those verses in the book of Revelation in a whole
new light... the verses that speak of jews who aren't but are the synagogue of satan.
OT prophecy says the name would be left as a curse and God would call His Servants
by another name [Christian.]
Yes, if we believe in Christ's redemptive work on the cross, we are saved. Then, we are a "new creation",no longer a slave to sin. Why would a person remain in sin if they are now in Christ?
Is all of this in bold biblical? Is it possible "new creation" is referring to a difference in one's way of thinking or the strength of their faith, not necessarily an absence (or even a significant decrease) of sin?
[LEFT]New Scottish bishop could see going to jail over 'gay marriage'
[LEFT]Archbishop-designate Philip Tartaglia of Glasgow could see himself being imprisoned for speaking out in support of the traditional married family.
“I could see myself going to jail possibly at some point over the next 15 years, if God spares me, if I speak out,” Archbishop Tartaglia said in an interview with STV News July 24. [/LEFT]
[LEFT]His comments came just a day before the Scottish government announced it would legislate in favor of same-sex “marriage.” Archbishop Tartaglia warned that the redefinition of marriage will have “enormous implications for religious liberty.”
Vladimir Putin recently said he will protect oppressed Christians worldwide.
" Vladimir Putin has promised to make the protection of repressed Christians in foreign countries
one of his foreign policy priorities if he becomes president again. "
Alright then, I suppose I am responding to what I see should be the logical outcomes of what you said, not what you necessarily believe. My apologies. But at this point, I then move on to ask what makes the Bible unique once you strip away its divine inspiration? What is it that differentiates its wisdom from other sources? Or if you do hold to a view that it's inspired, just not in the sense I do (i.e. actually God-breathed), can you explain what that inspiration entails?
I started to respond to this post last night and a series of wicked thunderstorms rolled through and I lost all electrical power. Divine intervention, perhaps?
I don't want to strip away the divine inspiration at all. The inspiration entails Paul's (or another writer's) earnest desire to express what he wants to convey to his audience. Paul was a man living with a burning need to spread the word of man's reconciliation with God through Christ. The Holy Spirit worked within him. I don't think that this means everything he wrote in his letters was purely the direct word of God, though. I realize you and many others do.
What differentiates its wisdom from other sources is the timing. The gospels and epistles were written in the earliest years of the church. You can go online right now to Amazon and find thousands of books on different aspects of Christianity, some of them written far more eloquently and concisely than anything found in the New Testament, but they are not the same. They don't part the curtain of the mists of church history and allow us to look back into when the church was in its embryonic stages. Everything written now is to some degree built upon what is already in scripture, and even the epistles and even the gospels themselves were only built upon the life of Jesus and the words he spoke while he walked on Earth. Unfortunately--or maybe not--there are still many mysteries and shadows in the scriptures whose meanings are subject to interpretation. The maybe not is because, IMO, God is so far beyond our understanding that we CAN only see through a glass darkly, and it is simply impossible to contain God within the poor written words and dim understanding of human beings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snowdenscold
You stated "Trying to justify the words one prefers by claiming them to be God's words instead is vain and borders on blasphemy" so I need to understand what makes these words of men (since they're not God's) different than any others', and also how you reconcile using them when the authors would be clearly deluded about their source and nature of revelation and their own views of the Scripture.
That statement was to say that by a person using bibilical words to the advantage that works best for him and his views, especially when those words are used to put down and judge other persons, and claiming that his/her interpretation is truly the word of God is prideful. I see people quote verses to justify their judgment of others, even to the point of quoting verses to show how their judgment is really just their "love" of others. Only God gets to judge, and fortunately, he is merciful, and if a person has to explain that they are loving someone, they aren't. It would be self-evident. None of us are qualified to judge another. We all DO it, because we're all sinners and that's one of the most common of human failings, but using scripture to justify judgment and claiming to act out of love when no love is present is treading on dangerous ground. Again, IMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snowdenscold
Oh, and also, I did not say you did not read the Epistles - I encouraged you to reread them again, because I firmly believe there is an abundance of relevance between those churches in the 1st century and the churches today.
There is, of course, given the fact that the church was made of human beings then and so it is now.
I appreciate your response, but I fail to see how you differentiate between what's in Scripture and any other writing other than some appeal to timing. Your definition of inspiration appears somewhat equivocal. It seems like you are trying to have your cake and eat it too, and it's just not working for me.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
