Communion: The Lord's Supper?

[Sozo]

:chew:

[Sold Out]

Sozo,

Are you aruging against the Catholic Eucharist or the practice of the Lord's Supper (as it is done in the protestant churches)?

[LightSon]

Originally posted by Sozo

LightSon... I'm hoping that you will take time to carefully read the opening post. In light of Paul's letter to the church in Corinth, I think it will give you a better understanding of the Lord's Supper.

Thank you for sharing Sozo. I have read it, and will do so again. I have preconceived ideas about this topic and so my tendency will be to read and dismiss that which I don't agree with. Have you ever done that?

[billwald]

Keep in mind that the Gospels were written long after 1 Cor.

[billwald]

Only that the Gospels are the final word from the Apostles. The final authority.

[Christine]

Originally posted by billwald

Keep in mind that the Gospels were written long after 1 Cor.

How do you know this to be true? I tend to believe that the Gospels, Revelation, and the rest of the non-Pauline books could easily have been written first, with Paul's epistles closing up the cannon.

[Mr. 5020]

Originally posted by Christine

How do you know this to be true? I tend to believe that the Gospels, Revelation, and the rest of the non-Pauline books could easily have been written first, with Paul's epistles closing up the cannon. You know that, or are you guessing?

[erethnereh]

Sozo, I think your confusing the Church, the body of Christ, with the divine body of Christ. The Church of course cannot be worshipped. It's called the body of Christ because we are working together with Christ. But we can no more worship an angel who's united with Christ than worship the Church. Now, Paul's verse, while not plainly telling us the distinction, does suggest so. A church, whether a group of believers or a building, cannot really be partaken. Also, you must look at John's gospel, where Jesus says he is the manna come down from heaven. The context of this passages suggests he's not referring to the church come down from heaven, but to himself, who assumed human flesh, and who came to give us life.

[erethnereh]

Where do you think that I have done that? I clearly made the same distinction that Paul made. Are you saying that the church is not the body of Christ?

No, what I mean is that the body of Christ in different contexts means different things. When Christ was here on earth, we could worship him, body, soul and divinity. His body was Himself, because he assumed human flesh.


Where did I mention anything about the church being worshipped?

This church thing was just an example. There are others of course. Christ, as member of the Trinity, is present everywhere but we cannot worship trees or books. His presence within these objects is of a different kind. Similarly, Christ is in the heart of the believer, but we dare not worship each other. His presence within people is different. But when he was on earth, he, his body, soul and divinity could be worshiped for he assumed human flesh and his body was his own. I can't explain any more than that because I'm not qualified.


It's called the body of Christ, because He dwells in us.

I must have been referring to the specific passage in Paul, for which he goes on to say "at the head is Christ". I can't dispute why you'd call the church the body of Christ. All that matters is that the church is the body of Christ, I guess.


Are you sure that we are talking about the same letter to the church in Corinth? Have your read the passages in question?

I'm referring to "Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ? Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread."

There's another point that I meant to mention. A thread earlier you(or maybe someone else) said something to effect that this only conduit for grace. For which you right in some respect, mankind cannot see God without Jesus. But there are other ways for the believer to receive Jesus, not necessarily through communion/Eucharist.

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by erethnereh

:blabla:

[billwald]

"I tend to believe that the Gospels, Revelation, and the rest of the non-Pauline books could easily have been written first, with Paul's epistles closing up the cannon."

Known as hyperdispensationalism. Mostly accepted by the Plymouth Brethern and other Darbites/Scofieldites. A v ery minority position.

[Christine]

Originally posted by billwald

Known as hyperdispensationalism. Mostly accepted by the Plymouth Brethern and other Darbites/Scofieldites. A v ery minority position.
Just because a belief is not accepted by the majority of Christendom does not mean we should dismiss it as being wrong.

[swanca99]

Originally posted by Sozo

I'm sure glad that everyone agrees with my presentation on how "Christianity" has completely perverted the Lord's supper.

I have read your initial post twice and I think you did an excellent job of expositing the passage. But I guess I'm missing something in the way you are applying it.

Are you saying that, based on the Corinthians' practice of having a meal as part of the Lord's supper, that is the proper way to have the Lord's Supper?

Are you saying that it is wrong to have a service in the local church in which the participants partake of bread and wine (or grape juice) in remembrance of Jesus and what He did for us?

As I'm relatively new to TOL and am relatively limited in the time I have to spend here, perhaps I have missed a thread which would give me more of a background. For example, I'm not familiar with any initial exchanges you might have had with LightSon.

[swanca99]

Originally posted by billwald

Known as hyperdispensationalism. Mostly accepted by the Plymouth Brethern and other Darbites/Scofieldites. A v ery minority position.

I have none of Darby's writings, but I've worked with the Plymouth Brethren off and on for 30 years and I "cut my teeth" on the Scofield Reference Bible.

If these guys are the "hyperdispensationalists," who are the "regular dispensationalists?"

Also, more relevant to this thread, and based on your previous comments, do you see something in the Gospels that contradicts what Paul is saying in I Corinithians, or Sozo's understanding of it?

[Sold Out]

I did some research on biblical dating:

Matthew - Written 50ad

Mark - Written late 50's or early 60's - or- shortly before the destruction of Jerusalem in ad70 (based on statements made about Mark by the early church fathers).

Luke - Written either between 59-63ad or 70-80 ad

John - Traditionally thought to have been written 85ad or later, but recent scholars have thought that it may have been written between 50-70ad

[billwald]

Majority dispensationalists usually thunk that the Church began at the time of Acts 2. Hypers think the Church began with St Paul and that Jesus preached in OT times and therefore the Matthew 5-7 teaching does not apply to Christians.

(Reformed teaching is that the Church began with Adam or maybe Abraham)

[Lighthouse]

bill-
I'm an Acts 9er, and I don't htink Jesus preached in the OT times. However, He did live under the Mosaic law. And Matthew 7 does apply to the church. Especially vs 1-5. So what are you on about?:confused:

[erethnereh]

Sozo, maybe I'm just confused at the point your making. Your desire, it seems, not to believe in communion comes from the belief that it's a ritual. You then attribute the blood and body of our Lord to be the Church. But Paul's words are clear. By partaking in the body and blood of our Lord we proclaim his death. If you believe the body and blood are the Church, is it not still a ritual?


Post #19 of 25
"I tend to believe that the Gospels, Revelation, and the rest of the non-Pauline books could easily have been written first, with Paul's epistles closing up the cannon."

Known as hyperdispensationalism. Mostly accepted by the Plymouth Brethern and other Darbites/Scofieldites. A v ery minority position.

Billwald, how does the order of the books change Christian doctrine though?

[Sold Out]

From what I am gathering from Sozo's posts, is that he/she (sorry - don't know if you are male or female) thinks the communion/Lord's Supper has been corrupted in it's practice -or- that partaking of the Lord's supper as done in the Protestant churches is not what Jesus/Paul meant.

In I Corinthians, 11:26, Paul says "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. "

During the Lord's Supper, we are to wipe our slates clean by confessing unconfessed sin to God. Also, we are showing the world Jesus saves....we are proclaiming his death and the blood he shed to save the souls of men.

That's what I believe about it.

[erethnereh]

OK, thank you SoldOut.


During the Lord's Supper, we are to wipe our slates clean by confessing unconfessed sin to God. Also, we are showing the world Jesus saves....we are proclaiming his death and the blood he shed to save the souls of men.
That's what I believe about it.

Yes, I believe so too.

[godrulz]

Do this in remembrance until He comes again. The Corinthians were abusing the love feast before the Lord's Supper. Paul is talking about a lack of love relating to the celebration, not ranting against communion.

So, to interpret the Corinthian passages, we must differentiate the love feast before communion (and the divisive problems) from communion itself (study context and historical background). We must also determine which sentences refer to the body and blood of Christ, and which refer to the Church, the Body of Christ (both uses found in relevant passages).

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by Sold Out

From what I am gathering from Sozo's posts, is that he/she (sorry - don't know if you are male or female) thinks the communion/Lord's Supper has been corrupted in it's practice -or- that partaking of the Lord's supper as done in the Protestant churches is not what Jesus/Paul meant.
Sozo is male.

Also, Catholic churches have it wrong as well.

In I Corinthians, 11:26, Paul says "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. "

During the Lord's Supper, we are to wipe our slates clean by confessing unconfessed sin to God. Also, we are showing the world Jesus saves....we are proclaiming his death and the blood he shed to save the souls of men.

That's what I believe about it.
Do what?

1] Christ is the only one who can wipe our slates clean.
2] He does so when we first come to Him. Not through communion.

[godrulz]

Catholic transubstantiation is heresy.

Lutheran consubstantiation is a lesser evil.

The Zwinglian view of communion as a memorial is biblical. Does Enyart have communion at his church? If not, why not?

[swanca99]

Where are we on the communion thing?

I was sorta looking forward to Sozo's answer to my post number 21.

I hope he's OK...

[Sold Out]

Me too Swanca99!

Godrulz, Lighthouse and God Is Truth need to start their own topic so they can debate somewhere else.

I do appreciate your posts guys, but they are not part of this topic.

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Sold Out

Me too Swanca99!

Godrulz, Lighthouse and God Is Truth need to start their own topic so they can debate somewhere else.

I do appreciate your posts guys, but they are not part of this topic.

2/2 of my posts were related to communion.

[Poly]

I split this thread. I titled the other thread "Lesser evil/OSAS" (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18624).

I agree that it was getting off topic but it was still another interesting subject.

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Poly

I split this thread. I titled the other thread "Lesser evil/OSAS" ( http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18624). I agree that it was getting off topic but it was still another interesting subject.

link does not work, please edit...

[billwald]

People who think transubstantiation is heresy do not understand Aristotilian logic. Get educated. (Even) the Christian Reformed Church has (finally) realized that the Catholic Mass is Christian worship.

[billwald]

People who think transubstantiation is heresy do not understand Aristotilian logic. Get educated. (Even) the Christian Reformed Church has (finally) realized that the Catholic Mass is Christian worship.

[Sold Out]

OK Bill Wald ....

Show me in the bible where it SAYS the communion bread and wine will transform into the literal body and blood of Christ!

[Thia]

I'm not Bill Wald, but this is what I found re the subject:

"... miracles strengthen belief in the supernatural change that takes place in the Eucharist—e.g. St. John Damascene to the creation:—" If" [he writes] "the word of the Lord is living and powerful (Hebr. 4:12); if heaven and earth, water, fire, and air, and all their ornament—not to speak of the noblest of animals called man—are perfected by the word of the Lord . . . why should He not be powerful enough to make finally also bread His Body and wine His Blood. "42 The same Saint, with St. Justin, to the Incarnation :—" If God the Word Himself [says the former] by His own will has made man, and compacted Flesh without any seed from the most pure . . . blood of the Virgin . . . why do you now ask how bread becomes (fiat) the Body of Christ? I reply that the Spirit overshadows and accomplishes that which surpasses speech and thought."43 St. Justin:—"We do not receive these elements either as common bread or common drink, but as through the word of God Christ Jesus our Saviour was made Flesh, and so also we are taught that that food from which our flesh and blood are nourished by its conversion (into them), is both the Flesh and Blood of that Incarnate Jesus, after that nourishment is made the Eucharist by the prayer containing His Words."

http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=1192

[billwald]

The bread > material cause
the blessing > efficient cause
our eating > formal cause
our salvation > final cause

[godrulz]

Originally posted by billwald

People who think transubstantiation is heresy do not understand Aristotilian logic. Get educated. (Even) the Christian Reformed Church has (finally) realized that the Catholic Mass is Christian worship.

That makes it true? The Body and Blood of Christ at the Last Supper was used metaphorically (take/eat, this is my body), not as a cannabilistic wooden literalism. Transubstantiation is extra/contrabiblical and misrepresents the nature and efficacy of Christ's death. He died once for all for sin and does not need to be literally ingested on a weekly or daily basis in religious ritual for salvation.

Expand on the relevance of pagan, Aristotle philosophy and its relationship to divine, authoritative revelation.

Paul affirmed with Jesus that we do this, with emblems/symbols vs literal blood/body, in remembrance (not for salvation) until He comes. His body is now glorified in heaven. His finite blood was spilled in the ground. It does not remanufacture oceans full for every Catholic mass. The shed blood is used interchangeably for His death. It is not magical nor perpetuated in Catholic churches around the world. Salvation is by faith in the person and work of Christ, not in partaking of emblems.

[godrulz]

Originally posted by billwald

The bread > material cause
the blessing > efficient cause
our eating > formal cause
our salvation > final cause

We use crackers and grape juice in our church. You could send it off for analysis. That is all they are. There is spiritual blessing in obeying the Lord and remembering His death and resurrection. His indwelling presence gives life, not emblems. There is no causal link between ingesting communion (physical) and salvation (spiritual).

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Thia

I'm not Bill Wald, but this is what I found re the subject:

"... miracles strengthen belief in the supernatural change that takes place in the Eucharist—e.g. St. John Damascene to the creation:—" If" [he writes] "the word of the Lord is living and powerful (Hebr. 4:12); if heaven and earth, water, fire, and air, and all their ornament—not to speak of the noblest of animals called man—are perfected by the word of the Lord . . . why should He not be powerful enough to make finally also bread His Body and wine His Blood. "42 The same Saint, with St. Justin, to the Incarnation :—" If God the Word Himself [says the former] by His own will has made man, and compacted Flesh without any seed from the most pure . . . blood of the Virgin . . . why do you now ask how bread becomes (fiat) the Body of Christ? I reply that the Spirit overshadows and accomplishes that which surpasses speech and thought."43 St. Justin:—"We do not receive these elements either as common bread or common drink, but as through the word of God Christ Jesus our Saviour was made Flesh, and so also we are taught that that food from which our flesh and blood are nourished by its conversion (into them), is both the Flesh and Blood of that Incarnate Jesus, after that nourishment is made the Eucharist by the prayer containing His Words."

http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=1192

Catholic sacraments are based on tradition and papal decree. They are not explicit in Scripture nor authoritative.

[Sold Out]

Well said Godrulz!

We don't disagree on everything:)

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Sold Out

Well said Godrulz!

We don't disagree on everything:)

Yipee...of course not...we have a common faith in Christ.

Moravian motto:

In essentials, unity.

In non-essentials, liberty.

In all things, charity/love.

[Thia]

Originally posted by godrulz

Catholic sacraments are based on tradition and papal decree. They are not explicit in Scripture nor authoritative.

Ok. But what difference does it make if Catholics want to believe the Body of Christ becomes one with them so they may become more Christ-like in the world? It is a spiritual reminder to them. It doesn't hurt anybody, so why bother castigating the whole church for one of their beliefs? Some Christians don't believe in corporal punishment for misbehaving children - does that make them 'unbelievers' because the OT sanctions punitive measures for disobedience? I think not.

[billwald]

EXACTLY! A sane god isn't going to semd people to Hell for "wrong think." A "belief" is a conclusion about someone's metaphysical experience.

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Thia

Ok. But what difference does it make if Catholics want to believe the Body of Christ becomes one with them so they may become more Christ-like in the world? It is a spiritual reminder to them. It doesn't hurt anybody, so why bother castigating the whole church for one of their beliefs? Some Christians don't believe in corporal punishment for misbehaving children - does that make them 'unbelievers' because the OT sanctions punitive measures for disobedience? I think not.

The issue is whether one trusts Christ and His finished work for salvation, or if one trusts ritual, tradition, and a Mother Church for salvation (Jn. 14:6; 3:16). Truth sets free. It is possible to be a Catholic and a Christian, but just being Catholic/religious does not make you a Christian. The same is true for the Protestant denominations. We are saved by a person, not a church.

We are made Christ-like by the Spirit, not by the Mass (Gal. 5:22,23).

The book of Hebrews also speaks to this issue.

Child discipline is not a salvific issue; the nature of salvation (soteriology) can be an essential issue (see Galatians; Romans).

[Thia]

Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation [fn, Cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:36; 6:40, et al.]. “Since ‘without faith it is impossible to please [God]’ and to attain to the fellowship of his sons, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life ‘but he who endures to the end’

http://www.dtl.org/catholicism/article/salvation/part-1.htm

Catholics believe they are saved, and that's good enough for me.

[godrulz]

Originally posted by billwald

EXACTLY! A sane god isn't going to semd people to Hell for "wrong think." A "belief" is a conclusion about someone's metaphysical experience.

There is absolute revealed truth and there are lies that deceive. Drinking a glass of pure water with a drop of lethal poison will kill you regardless of your beliefs. Trusting a counterfeit Christ or Gospel is worthless in the eyes of the God of truth and righteousness.

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Thia

Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation [fn, Cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:36; 6:40, et al.]. “Since ‘without faith it is impossible to please [God]’ and to attain to the fellowship of his sons, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life ‘but he who endures to the end’

http://www.dtl.org/catholicism/article/salvation/part-1.htm

Catholics believe they are saved, and that's good enough for me.

Mormons, JWs, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. believe they are saved despite diametrically opposed beliefs to each other and biblical Christianity. It does not matter what is good enough for us. What matters is truth in God's sight. Catholics can be saved, but not all are saved (cf. Protestant, nominal church goers).

What is your faith background Thia?

[Thia]

Well, I guess we'll all find out on judgment day, won't we?

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Thia

Well, I guess we'll all find out on judgment day, won't we?

Jesus is the only one who rose from the dead to validate His exclusive truth claims (Acts 4:12 salvation is in no other name).

Your faith background, if any?

[Thia]

Prot.

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Thia

Prot.

Baptist? Pentecostal? Lutheran? Episcopal? Alliance? Methodist?

Just curious...

[Thia]

Originally posted by godrulz

Baptist? Pentecostal? Lutheran? Episcopal? Alliance? Methodist?

Just curious...

I take the Fifth, godrulz. It matters not, really.

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Thia

I take the Fifth, godrulz. It matters not, really.

We do not have the 5th Amendment in Canada. Now I have to send my thugs to torture you for the information:cool:

[Thia]

Originally posted by godrulz

We do not have the 5th Amendment in Canada. Now I have to send my thugs to torture you for the information:cool:

Ha! Catch me if you can...

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by Thia

It doesn't hurt anybody, so why bother castigating the whole church for one of their beliefs?
One?!

You think the only problem is one of their beliefs?!

[erethnereh]

That makes it true? The Body and Blood of Christ at the Last Supper was used metaphorically (take/eat, this is my body), not as a cannabilistic wooden literalism.

Well consider John 6. While not the first Eucharist, Jesus refers to himself as bread, by directly saying "this bread."


Transubstantiation is extra/contrabiblical and misrepresents the nature and efficacy of Christ's death. He died once for all for sin and does not need to be literally ingested on a weekly or daily basis in religious ritual for salvation.

Just because Jesus has died for all sin, does not mean Christians don't sin. On the contrary, Christians sin and must go back to Christ for forgiveness, just like Peter did.


Paul affirmed with Jesus that we do this, with emblems/symbols vs literal blood/body, in remembrance (not for salvation) until He comes.

Jesus said "do this in memory of me," for which we conclude only that the ritual is supposed to be done in memory--not that the ritual's signficance is only the memory.


His body is now glorified in heaven. His finite blood was spilled in the ground. It does not remanufacture oceans full for every Catholic mass. The shed blood is used interchangeably for His death.

The multiplication of the loaves suggests otherwise, though it's not really my concern how precisely he does it.

[elected4ever]

erethnerehJust because Jesus has died for all sin, does not mean Christians don't sin. Yes it does.

[erethnereh]

Yes it does.

Our victory is in accepting His victory, just as we become sinless by accepting the one without sin. We aren't sinless, He is. And so we aren't sinless until we accept His love for us perfectly and always. But we are Christians. We have accepted Him, and so Jesus, in the book of Revelation, to the church at Sardis says "Be watchful and strengthen what is left, which is going to die, for I have not found your works complete in the sight of my God. Remember then how you accepted and heard; keep it, and repent." He says both accept and repent because these people accepted him, by becoming Christians, and sinned, by becoming sinners.

[godrulz]

Originally posted by elected4ever

erethnereh Yes it does.

No it doesn't (I John);)

[godrulz]

Originally posted by erethnereh

Well consider John 6. While not the first Eucharist, Jesus refers to himself as bread, by directly saying "this bread."


Just because Jesus has died for all sin, does not mean Christians don't sin. On the contrary, Christians sin and must go back to Christ for forgiveness, just like Peter did.


Jesus said "do this in memory of me," for which we conclude only that the ritual is supposed to be done in memory--not that the ritual's signficance is only the memory.


The multiplication of the loaves suggests otherwise, though it's not really my concern how precisely he does it.

Jesus is also a door, light, gate, bread of life, water, shepherd, etc. These are metaphors to describe His nature and ways. They are not to be taken with a wooden literalism (excuse the pun...door...wood). Jesus is the bread of life, but this is not in reference to the Mass.

The loaves and fishes are about God's abundance and miracles. Again, it is not didactic for the work of the cross, Catholic Mass, communion, etc. (what does fish represent in light of body/blood?).

[erethnereh]

Jesus is also a door, light, gate, bread of life, water, shepherd, etc. These are metaphors to describe His nature and ways. They are not to be taken with a wooden literalism (excuse the pun...door...wood).

Having physically died for us, Jesus comes to us both physically and spiritually. He came to Thomas physically---not just as a ghost.
But it's not for us to choose how he comes to us. He might come to some in this life time only spiritual, I don't know.


The loaves and fishes are about God's abundance and miracles. Again, it is not didactic for the work of the cross, Catholic Mass, communion, etc. (what does fish represent in light of body/blood?).

Okay, my real point wasn't what the abundance meant, but what was possible. Nothing is impossible for God; so to alledge that Jesus couldn't be received physically by Catholics everywhere isn't a valid argument.

[erethnereh]

what does fish represent in light of body/blood?).

Maybe we should start another thread. My wager would be disciples. He's directing Peter to be the fisher of men.

[godrulz]

Originally posted by erethnereh

Having physically died for us, Jesus comes to us both physically and spiritually. He came to Thomas physically---not just as a ghost.
But it's not for us to choose how he comes to us. He might come to some in this life time only spiritual, I don't know.


Okay, my real point wasn't what the abundance meant, but what was possible. Nothing is impossible for God; so to alledge that Jesus couldn't be received physically by Catholics everywhere isn't a valid argument.

The evidence in Scripture contradicts transubstantiation. There are things that are impossible for God (e.g. He cannot do self-contradictory or absurd things). Revelation> reason. The revelation of Scripture does not support the Catholic Mass.

[godrulz]

Originally posted by erethnereh

Maybe we should start another thread. My wager would be disciples. He's directing Peter to be the fisher of men.

The allegorical method leads to fanciful, subjective interpretations.

We must use the literal, grammatical, contextual, historical, theological, cultural method of interpretation to find out what it meant to the original audience. Then we apply it to our lives by way of principle. The fish do not have to represent anything, other than a miracle from God to feed people. It could have been bagels or lox for all it mattered.

[erethnereh]

The evidence in Scripture contradicts transubstantiation. There are things that are impossible for God (e.g. He cannot do self-contradictory or absurd things). Revelation> reason.

I agree. But something that self-contradicts isn't really a "thing", is it?


The allegorical method leads to fanciful, subjective interpretations.

Well, I don't have a problem with symbols. Any given thing we do or have either has meaning or doesn't have meaning. Everything that God does has meaning. Sometimes we don't know the meaning behind what God did, in which case the only possible conclusion is that we don't know.

[godrulz]

A bird eating a worm does not have mystical, spiritual meaning. Some details in Scripture are incidental. A parable has one main truth. The details round the story, but do not have to have mystical meaning.

[erethnereh]

A bird eating a worm does not have mystical, spiritual meaning.

Perhaps not a spiritual meaning; but if you view that God created birds, wanting them to eat worms, then it all fits into some deeper meaning. Perhaps by the bird eating the worm, the bird keeps the worm population in check.


Some details in Scripture are incidental. A parable has one main truth. The details round the story, but do not have to have mystical meaning.

A parable doesn't necessarily have just one truth, just one main theme. Some of Christ's parables even have several truths. Often in showing a theme he constrasts several truths. But I agree with you, sometimes the details simply don't matter. If I was to say "one a upon a time there was a man...", the man wouldn't necessarily have to have existed. But my example here wasn't a parable. The multplication of the loaves was something Jesus really did.

[elected4ever]

Originally posted by godrulz

No it doesn't (I John);) Yes it does 1John:chuckle:

[godrulz]

Originally posted by elected4ever

Yes it does 1John:chuckle:

No it does not (Hezekiah 1:2; Star Trek fleet manual, p. 0):mad:

[LightSon]

Originally posted by godrulz

No it does not (Hezekiah 1:2; Star Trek fleet manual, p. 0):mad:

I was about to label this remark a non-sequitur, but then I remembered that as a Canadian, you probably have to stand in line for years to get your lithium.

[godrulz]

Originally posted by LightSon

I was about to label this remark a non-sequitur, but then I remembered that as a Canadian, you probably have to stand in line for years to get your lithium.

At least we have universal healthcare even for the poor. Our system does not routinely bankrupt people over medical bills. Why are so many Americans ordering Canadian prescriptions on line? We are less expensive. Having said that, our system has serious flaws. Are you manic-depressive (know about lithium)?

[billwald]

The Canadian medical system is bankrupting the national govt. Canadians don't pay for your national defense because you know that we will bail you out so you can spend the difference on your medical care and it is still going down the tube.

[godrulz]

Originally posted by billwald

The Canadian medical system is bankrupting the national govt. Canadians don't pay for your national defense because you know that we will bail you out so you can spend the difference on your medical care and it is still going down the tube.

Our Liberal Government likes to tax and spend like there is no tomorrow. They just increased military funding significantly. Canada is a great, but imperfect country.

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by godrulz

No it doesn't (I John);)
Do you mean 1 John 3:9?
"Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God."
;)

[godrulz]

Originally posted by lighthouse

Do you mean 1 John 3:9?
"Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God."
;)

We have looked at this verse previously. It is not a proof text for sinless perfection, nor OSAS. I am referring to the whole book with each verse exegeted grammatically in context.

[Lighthouse]

You're pathetic!

You can't refute the words of the Bible, so you claim that they say something different than what they do. You're sick.

[godrulz]

Originally posted by lighthouse

You're pathetic!

You can't refute the words of the Bible, so you claim that they say something different than what they do. You're sick.

Thx for the sympathy. I can't seem to shake this viral infection. My lungs are burning and I cough at night.

I never refute the words of the Bible. I exegete, apply, and obey them.

Unless you know Koine Greek, you might want to consider the various possible interpretations of your proof text proposed by godly, capable scholars. It must be interpreted grammatically and contextually without contradicting other proximal verses.

When you get older and wiser, you will learn to know when to be dogmatic and when to be teachable.:p

In the mean time, I am glad you are not sick anymore and appreciate your recognition that I am under the weather;)

[elected4ever]

godrulzWhen you get older and wiser, you will learn to know when to be dogmatic and when to be teachable. Apparently your not there yet.:doh:

[godrulz]

Originally posted by elected4ever

godrulz Apparently your not there yet.:doh:

Apparently, you can't spell 'you're'.

I know enough from looking at both sides of the issue to know that OSAS is not a salvific doctrine and is highly problematic unless you are a die hard hyper-Calvinist.

I am dogmatic on the Deity of Christ, the existence of God, the sinfulness of man, the efficacy of the plan of redemption, the personality of the Spirit, the resurrection of Christ, etc. Are you dogmatic on these things?

[HopeofGlory]

I would think that salvation as it pretains to trusting in Christ to deliver us from our sins means to escape the torments of hell so if eternal security is not had then salvation is not really salvific is it?

[godrulz]

Originally posted by HopeofGlory

I would think that salvation as it pretains to trusting in Christ to deliver us from our sins means to escape the torments of hell so if eternal security is not had then salvation is not really salvific is it?

Believers are eternally secure in Christ. They are truly saved from start to finish (justification to glorification). They are saved from the penalty, power, and presence of sin.

Unbelievers are not saved, whether they once were or not.

The question is if a believer can revert back to rebellion and unbelief. There is no logical or biblical reason to preclude this possibility.

One either dies in a state of persistent faith or persistent unbelief. This determines destiny. Just because someone followed Christ for a few years does not whitewash their subsequent rebellion and renunciation that could have lasted even longer.

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by godrulz

Believers are eternally secure in Christ. They are truly saved from start to finish (justification to glorification). They are saved from the penalty, power, and presence of sin.

Unbelievers are not saved, whether they once were or not.

The question is if a believer can revert back to rebellion and unbelief. There is no logical or biblical reason to preclude this possibility.
First, you contradict yourself.

One either dies in a state of persistent faith or persistent unbelief. This determines destiny. Just because someone followed Christ for a few years does not whitewash their subsequent rebellion and renunciation that could have lasted even longer.
Then you show that you don't have a clue what eternal security means, at all.

[elected4ever]

Lighthouse, you cannot argue with an idiot. Godrulz only knows what he has read in a book. He does not know or trust Christ. There is no other explanation.

[godrulz]

Originally posted by elected4ever

Lighthouse, you cannot argue with an idiot. Godrulz only knows what he has read in a book. He does not know or trust Christ. There is no other explanation.

Do you believe hundreds of millions of godly, capable Arminians, Wesleyans, Pentecostals, Open Theists, etc. through the ages are going to hell because they reject Calvinistic OSAS?

It is possible to know and trust Christ and hold to various views of sanctification and the perseverance of the saints (all claiming to be based on the Bible).

I base my views on THE BOOK, the Bible. I cannot adopt OSAS without poor exegesis and proof texting. If I read an exegetical book, it is confirmatory, not the basis for my beliefs.

Unless you are part of a narrow cult, it is possible to be OSAS or non-OSAS and know and love Jesus (check out the spectrum of views within Protestant, historical, evangelical Christianity. OSAS is controversial, not dogma).

Rejecting your view based on the illumination of the Spirit and sound exegesis does not make one an idiot, Mr. Argumentum Ad Hominem.:p

The thread is Communion...focus gentlemen...there are other threads to beat the dead horse. Chill guys. I love Jesus. He honors child-like faith, not theological, scholastic excellence relating to monergism vs synergism, election, libertarian free will, etc. (some of the relevant issues to our debate).

[elected4ever]

Originally posted by godrulz

Do you believe hundreds of millions of godly, capable Arminians, Wesleyans, Pentecostals, Open Theists, etc. through the ages are going to hell because they reject Calvinistic OSAS?

It is possible to know and trust Christ and hold to various views of sanctification and the perseverance of the saints (all claiming to be based on the Bible).

I base my views on THE BOOK, the Bible. I cannot adopt OSAS without poor exegesis and proof texting. If I read an exegetical book, it is confirmatory, not the basis for my beliefs.

Unless you are part of a narrow cult, it is possible to be OSAS or non-OSAS and know and love Jesus (check out the spectrum of views within Protestant, historical, evangelical Christianity. OSAS is controversial, not dogma).

Rejecting your view based on the illumination of the Spirit and sound exegesis does not make one an idiot, Mr. Argumentum Ad Hominem.:p

The thread is Communion...focus gentlemen...there are other threads to beat the dead horse. Chill guys. I love Jesus. He honors child-like faith, not theological, scholastic excellence relating to monergism vs synergism, election, libertarian free will, etc. (some of the relevant issues to our debate). I do not believe that those who reject the gospel in favor of another gospel are godly people . They are religious not godly and I could care less about the sincerity of one's belief system. I was sincere for years but I was sincerely wrong. I accepted others who held other views than what I had because I was non to sure about my own. Like you I was a prisoner of what I was tough from my youth and in seminary. I had to throw all of that away. I count it all lost for the sake of the gospel of the Lord Jesus.

[godrulz]

Originally posted by elected4ever

I do not believe that those who reject the gospel in favor of another gospel are godly people . They are religious not godly and I could care less about the sincerity of one's belief system. I was sincere for years but I was sincerely wrong. I accepted others who held other views than what I had because I was non to sure about my own. Like you I was a prisoner of what I was tough from my youth and in seminary. I had to throw all of that away. I count it all lost for the sake of the gospel of the Lord Jesus.

There is a difference between another gospel of a different kind (heteros...Gal. 1:6-10) and theological nuances. I imagine we both stand in the Protestant, evangelical tradition of justification by grace through faith alone in the person and finished work of Christ. I would not confuse perseverance of the saints with justification by faith.

Sincerity does not create truth, but diversity of opinion on controversial like eschatology are not salvific issues.

I disagree with much of my formal training...e.g. I am an Open Theist, not an Arminian like my denomination.

Your assumption is that your unique understanding of the Gospel is identical to biblical, historical, orthodox Christianity. If you are making OSAS a condition of salvation and the core of the Gospel, you need to revisit the simplicity of the Gospel (death and resurrection of Christ and faith in Him alone).

Rejecting your subjective view (or Sozos or lighthouse or mine) of the Gospel is not tantamount to rejecting biblical Christianity and Christ.

[elected4ever]

godrulzThere is a difference between another gospel of a different kind (heteros...Gal. 1:6-10) and theological nuances. I imagine we both stand in the Protestant, evangelical tradition of justification by grace through faith alone in the person and finished work of Christ. I would not confuse perseverance of the saints with justification by faith. There is only one way a person perseveres and that is that Christ persevered. We are in Christ. Placed there by the Father and not something achieved by the acts of mortal man.

There is only one way to be righteous and that is to be made righteous from a source outside of the unrighteousness of man. Namely God. Righteousness is not an attribute of man and is indeed not achievable by man.

Have you noticed that righteousness is demanded by God. Righteousness is not an option. There is no way that ether of us can lay clam to righteousness without having received that righteousness from God. Yet we know that even the most godly among us will lie cheat and steal to survive. It is just the nature of who we are as mortal men.

We cannot remain subject to mortality and be righteous.This is the point of our divergence. You say that we remain subject to the unrighteousness of the flesh in our mortality and I say that we do not. Though we remain in the flesh we are not subject to the flesh. If we remain subject to the flesh then we have no chance whatsoever to persevere. Jesus became our righteousness when we believed and our identity is in Christ and not in our mortality. Our mortality is temporal and our identity is eternal.

godrulz Sincerity does not create truth, but diversity of opinion on controversial like eschatology are not salvific issues. true but we are not talking about eschatology. We are talking about who we are in Christ. Out identity. Weather that identity remains in the flesh or has our identity change from that of being a sinner (being subject to the flesh) Or our being made righteous (being made righteous by an act of God). You cannot equate the works of the spirit to the acts of the flesh.

[godrulz]

"Imputation" without reality is specious.

Paul taught that we can use our will, intellect, spirit to yield to the Spirit or yield to the flesh. He did not divorce obedience from the work of the Spirit to conform us to the image of Christ. No one is righteous in themselves (filthy rags), yet we cannot claim to be righteous in Christ while we live like the devil or in a state of sinful rebellion (volitional/moral vs metaphysical).

[elected4ever]

Originally posted by godrulz

"Imputation" without reality is specious.

Paul taught that we can use our will, intellect, spirit to yield to the Spirit or yield to the flesh. He did not divorce obedience from the work of the Spirit to conform us to the image of Christ. No one is righteous in themselves (filthy rags), yet we cannot claim to be righteous in Christ while we live like the devil or in a state of sinful rebellion (volitional/moral vs metaphysical). Do you understand what you just said. You just said that salvation is superficial. Not real. Christianity is therefore a superficial religion. Its just window dressing on a dirty window. You agree with Carl Marks?

[billwald]

First, Canada is a great country but I watch and listen to CBC. The last elections were about the cost of the health system an a recent story reported that sick people in Manitoba had to wait months to see a doctor.

Second, "eternal life" is about quality, not quantity of life.

Third:

"Believers are eternally secure in Christ. They are truly saved from start to finish (justification to glorification). They are saved from the penalty, power, and presence of sin."

True, but there is no objective standard to identify "believer." The only subjective standard is persisting in good works. (for example) If "saying the prayer" was operative then the prayer should be added to the 'Pledge of Allegiance" and then all Americans will be "saved."

[Lighthouse]

No one in Christ lives in rebellion. Don't play stupid games, godrulz.

[Rightglory]

"Believers are eternally secure in Christ. They are truly saved from start to finish (justification to glorification). They are saved from the penalty, power, and presence of sin."
That is a very bold assertion. Could you back it up with scripture?

[Rightglory]

eledcted4ever,

{quote]There is only one way to be righteous and that is to be made righteous from a source outside of the unrighteousness of man. Namely God. Righteousness is not an attribute of man and is indeed not achievable by man.

Have you noticed that righteousness is demanded by God. Righteousness is not an option. There is no way that ether of us can lay clam to righteousness without having received that righteousness from God.[/quote] One paragraph contradicts the other and both cannot be found in scripture.

You say that man in no shape or form can ever be righteous and it is given to us. Yet you say God demands it. Who is he demanding? Man, as your view, is unable to even be righteous, is God demanding righteousness of Christ. Are you saying that Christ is not righteous. If so, how can he give it to us?

Though we remain in the flesh we are not subject to the flesh. If we remain subject to the flesh then we have no chance whatsoever to persevere. Could you provide scripture please?

[elected4ever]

Originally posted by Rightglory

eledcted4ever,

{quote]There is only one way to be righteous and that is to be made righteous from a source outside of the unrighteousness of man. Namely God. Righteousness is not an attribute of man and is indeed not achievable by man.

Have you noticed that righteousness is demanded by God. Righteousness is not an option. There is no way that ether of us can lay clam to righteousness without having received that righteousness from God. One paragraph contradicts the other and both cannot be found in scripture.

You say that man in no shape or form can ever be righteous and it is given to us. Yet you say God demands it. Who is he demanding? Man, as your view, is unable to even be righteous, is God demanding righteousness of Christ. Are you saying that Christ is not righteous. If so, how can he give it to us?

Could you provide scripture please? [/QUOTE] Romans 8:2 _For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
3 _For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
4 _That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
5 _For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
6 _For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
7 _Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
8 _So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
9 _But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
10 _¶And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
11 _But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
12 _Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.
13 _For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.
14 _For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

[godrulz]

Originally posted by elected4ever

Do you understand what you just said. You just said that salvation is superficial. Not real. Christianity is therefore a superficial religion. Its just window dressing on a dirty window. You agree with Carl Marks?

:doh:

What are you talking about. I am suggesting, with John Wesley, that there is more than one way to understand imputation. If you claim to be righteous in Christ, it should be reflected in reality. Peter said we are to be holy as He is holy in a context of obedient choices (I Peter 1:13-16). Paul said that we are to purify ourselves in light of Christ in us (2 Cor. 7:1). Romans 6 involves active obedience and yielding, not passive, unilateral imputation.

Salvation is real, not superficial. Karl Marx and I have little in common. Think/respond vs react, grasshopper.

[godrulz]

Originally posted by lighthouse

No one in Christ lives in rebellion. Don't play stupid games, godrulz.

Correct. No one who is actively, presently IN CHRIST lives in rebellion. This is the antithesis of being submitted as a child of God (I Cor. 6:9-11; Gal. 5).

This does not preclude someone from renouncing Christ, no longer being IN Christ, and returning to an ultimate heart intention of living for SELF vs God...i.e. in a state of profound rebellion and no longer in right relationship with Christ= unbeliever vs believer. One cannot be in submission to Christ as a believer and in rebellion to the things of God as an unbeliever at the same time and at the point of death. You have to decide if you are a deterministic Calvinist with irresisitible grace, unconditional election, limited atonement, perseverance of the saints unconditionally OR if you will live up to your claims as a free will Open Theist. You are inconsistent in your beliefs leading to specious conclusions. We either can change our minds and wills or we cannot. If we cannot just because we are believers, then love, freedom, responsibility/accountability, etc are illusory.

I do not play stupid games, Mr. Semanticshifter.

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Rightglory

That is a very bold assertion. Could you back it up with scripture?

I Jn. 5:11-13

As long as one remains a believer (continuous state of faith/belief= Gk. present, continuous tense), they have the Son (in right relationship with Him). Eternal life is in the Son; we have the Son; we have eternal life.

Unbelievers experience condemnation and wrath. They are not in the Son and do not have eternal life.

Romans 1-8 would support freedom from past/present sins with a hope of future glorification removed from the very presence of sinners in this fallen world (justification/sanctification/glorification).

[elected4ever]

Originally posted by godrulz

:doh:

What are you talking about. I am suggesting, with John Wesley, that there is more than one way to understand imputation. If you claim to be righteous in Christ, it should be reflected in reality. Peter said we are to be holy as He is holy in a context of obedient choices (I Peter 1:13-16). Paul said that we are to purify ourselves in light of Christ in us (2 Cor. 7:1). Romans 6 involves active obedience and yielding, not passive, unilateral imputation.

Salvation is real, not superficial. Karl Marx and I have little in common. Think/respond vs react, grasshopper. The reality is the spirit life in Christ and not the physical life of the flesh. The flesh life is dead and therefore has no viability in the spirit world. The spirit is alive and is viable and does have an effect on the physical through its influence. When we receive life through the new birth there is an influence that was not previously there. That is why the new birth is reality and not a metaphor. It is actual. It is reality.

[godrulz]

New life in Christ is real. Spiritual birth is real. The phrase 'born again/anew/from above' is a metaphor for the reality of spiritual life. "Flesh" is a metaphor for sin or living to please bodily desires. It is not a physical substance back of the will that causes us to sin. The will is the seat of choices, not a nebulous, genetic, 'sinful nature' (= flesh in Gk.).

[elected4ever]

Originally posted by godrulz

New life in Christ is real. Spiritual birth is real. The phrase 'born again/anew/from above' is a metaphor for the reality of spiritual life. "Flesh" is a metaphor for sin or living to please bodily desires. It is not a physical substance back of the will that causes us to sin. The will is the seat of choices, not a nebulous, genetic, 'sinful nature' (= flesh in Gk.). You do not know who you are or who Christ is. If you were saved (born again) you would have knowledge of both and not just contrived theory.

[godrulz]

Originally posted by elected4ever

You do not know who you are or who Christ is. If you were saved (born again) you would have knowledge of both and not just contrived theory.

See my Deity of Christ thread for verses about who Jesus is. If you are a Protestant, evangelical, biblical, historical Christian you will agree that I know who Jesus is. I know I am saved because I know Him whom to know is eternal life. Understanding or disagreeing on the Pauline use of 'flesh' is not a salvific issue. Augustinian/Catholic 'original sin' is tradition, not Bible. "Born again" is used 3x in the Bible. It has become a modern cliche (in the 1970s). Nicodemus misunderstood Jesus' teaching on the phrase. It is not the only imagery of salvation. I do not deny the new birth, regeneration, spiritual life, etc. I just recognize, with Jesus, that spiritual birth is not identical to physical birth.

[elected4ever]

Originally posted by godrulz

See my Deity of Christ thread for verses about who Jesus is. If you are a Protestant, evangelical, biblical, historical Christian you will agree that I know who Jesus is. I know I am saved because I know Him whom to know is eternal life. Understanding or disagreeing on the Pauline use of 'flesh' is not a salvific issue. Augustinian/Catholic 'original sin' is tradition, not Bible. "Born again" is used 3x in the Bible. It has become a modern cliche (in the 1970s). Nicodemus misunderstood Jesus' teaching on the phrase. It is not the only imagery of salvation. I do not deny the new birth, regeneration, spiritual life, etc. I just recognize, with Jesus, that spiritual birth is not identical to physical birth. The new birth or being born again is the bringing forth of life where no life existed before. That new life has the character of the one who gave it. Unless you say that the life that was received was from man or a demon you cannot say that the the new birth is sinful or has the capacity to sin. Sense the born again believer received new life from God then there is no capacity to sin or is sinful because it is the Holy, eternal life of God that was received. Sense that life is eternal than there is no chance of losing it because it can never die.You ether have received that life and are saved or you have not received that life and are lost.

[godrulz]

The will/person choses whether an unbeliever or believer commits sinful adultery. You have to do mental gymnastics to explain how or why a believer commits adultery in your view (negating free will and accountability). One cannot divorce sin and righteousness from choices (see Jesus, Paul, John, Peter writings). Confusing metaphysics (sin as substance) with morals (sin as choice) leads to wrong conclusions.

[Sozo]

Originally posted by godrulz

The will/person choses whether an unbeliever or believer commits sinful adultery. You have to do mental gymnastics to explain how or why a believer commits adultery in your view (negating free will and accountability). One cannot divorce sin and righteousness from choices (see Jesus, Paul, John, Peter writings). Confusing metaphysics (sin as substance) with morals (sin as choice) leads to wrong conclusions.

A person who believes the things that you believe, is either a liar, a lunatic, or a demon from hell.

Don't give us any patronizing nonsense about your claiming to be a Christian, because it is simply not a possibility for anyone to say the things that you say, and to have ever encountered Jesus.

(My apologies to Mr. Lewis)

[godrulz]

What is your explanation for a person meeting somewhere, taking off their clothes and having sex if not an act of the will?:rolleyes:

[elected4ever]

Originally posted by godrulz

The will/person choses whether an unbeliever or believer commits sinful adultery. You have to do mental gymnastics to explain how or why a believer commits adultery in your view (negating free will and accountability). One cannot divorce sin and righteousness from choices (see Jesus, Paul, John, Peter writings). Confusing metaphysics (sin as substance) with morals (sin as choice) leads to wrong conclusions. All sin is of the flesh and has been condemned in the flesh but the child of God is not of the flesh but of the Spirit. It is in the Spirit that the Love of God resides and modifies the behavior of the body. The will of the flesh never changes. We are in the world but not of the world. Present day circumstance. Total free will is a rouge and does not exist. The belief of total free will is the flesh's attempt to maintain it choice which it no longer has the authority to make so stop giving it a place where it does not deserve to be. The flesh is dead with all its works (sin) and perishes with mortal life and does not continue. Only the righteous life given by God of His seed is eternal and will continue. Why is that so hard for you to understand? Why are you so unwilling to believe God?

[godrulz]

Without free will there is no responsibility/accountability. Nothing is praiseworthy or blameworthy, contrary to Scripture. The Bible talks about what we do or do not do with our bodies, the temple of the Holy Spirit. Flesh is not a literal, nebulous causative nature back of the will. It is a metaphor for sin and living for bodily pleasures and appetites over the glory of God.

[elected4ever]

Originally posted by godrulz

Without free will there is no responsibility/accountability. Nothing is praiseworthy or blameworthy, contrary to Scripture. The Bible talks about what we do or do not do with our bodies, the temple of the Holy Spirit. Flesh is not a literal, nebulous causative nature back of the will. It is a metaphor for sin and living for bodily pleasures and appetites over the glory of God. Why did you sin in the first place if there was not a literal, nebulous causative nature back of the will to do so? Your dumber that a fence post.

[godrulz]

Originally posted by elected4ever

Why did you sin in the first place if there was not a literal, nebulous causative nature back of the will to do so? Your dumber that a fence post.

Lucifer and Adam did not have your mythical nature, yet they sinned. Sin is lawlessness or a wrong moral choice. It is not a substance. The will is the seat of moral agency, not a causative force lodged in your bones, blood, or genes. This is self-evident and makes me smarter than a brainless fence post.

Augustinian assumptions: we sin because we are sinners due to Adam.

Biblical: we are sinners because we chose to sin.

God created us in his moral (free agents), spiritual (God-conscious), and personal (will, intellect, emotions) image. The possibility of love, freedom, and relationship inherently must have the equal possibility (not certainty, necessity, or causative) of selfishness, hatred, bondage, rebellion, enmity. The choice is possible, not coerced nor caused.

The soul who sins is the one who will die. If there was a causative will, God's commands to repent or be holy would be disingenuous. Total depravity does not mean total inability. He would be unjust to judge us for something we could not help nor could not do (repent and trust). We, not God, are responsible for heinous evil. His creation was 'very good' before the Fall. The Fall was not a foregone conclusion, but only a possibility until actualized by a disobedient choice.

Physical depravity is passed on to the human race. There are consequences to the Fall, including death and disease. We have a propensity to sin. We all actualize this propensity at some point after we have mental and moral capacity. We are all condemned as sinners, so it is somewhat academic whether we are born innocent or not. Moral depravity (realm of choices) cannot be inherited, passed on, caused, etc. It is not in the realm of metaphysics (stuff, substance...your 'sin nature/flesh' concept).

A wrong concept of sin, freedom, flesh, holiness, etc. will lead to wrong conclusions. We do not have to be infant baptized in the Catholic church due to original sin so we do not go to hell if we die as babies.

Again, if there is a causative thing back of our wills, we are not truly responsible for our choices. It is self-evident that we make choices. If we all have this so-called causative nature, why does not everyone murder, adulterate, steal, worship idols, etc.? Murder involves volition. Perhaps you confuse 'sin nature' with demon possession or a robotic creation on the planet Melmac?

[Sozo]

God created Adam & Eve, you dimwit. Everyone else is BORN after their likeness.

"When Adam had lived one hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in his own likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth."


Adam was created alive, and when he sinned, he died. Adam was separated from the life of God, and so are all those who are born of Adam.

Jesus was born of a virgin, alive in the Spirit. Those who are born of God are made alive in Him.

"For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ."

Your theology is a doctrine of demons, not biblical, as you falsely claim. You have repeatedly claimed that the life of God is of no effect, and by claiming that those who are in Christ are unholy, you call the Spirit of God unholy. You are a blasphemer of the Holy Spirit and a devil.

[elected4ever]

Originally posted by Sozo

God created Adam & Eve, you dimwit. Everyone else is BORN after their likeness.

"When Adam had lived one hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in his own likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth."


Adam was created alive, and when he sinned, he died. Adam was separated from the life of God, and so are all those who are born of Adam.

Jesus was born of a virgin, alive in the Spirit. Those who are born of God are made alive in Him.

"For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ."

Your theology is a doctrine of demons, not biblical, as you falsely claim. You have repeatedly claimed that the life of God is of no effect, and by claiming that those who are in Christ are unholy, you call the Spirit of God unholy. You are a blasphemer of the Holy Spirit and a devil. :up:

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Sozo

God created Adam & Eve, you dimwit. Everyone else is BORN after their likeness.

"When Adam had lived one hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in his own likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth."


Adam was created alive, and when he sinned, he died. Adam was separated from the life of God, and so are all those who are born of Adam.

Jesus was born of a virgin, alive in the Spirit. Those who are born of God are made alive in Him.

"For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ."

Your theology is a doctrine of demons, not biblical, as you falsely claim. You have repeatedly claimed that the life of God is of no effect, and by claiming that those who are in Christ are unholy, you call the Spirit of God unholy. You are a blasphemer of the Holy Spirit and a devil.

Adam's children were born in his physical likeness. Become familiar with Hebrew phraseology lest you proof text beyond the simple meaning of the text. It is talking about his children, not a doctrine of original sin, etc.

Adam did not die physically at the moment he sinned. He did die spiritually. Physical death reigned after Adam. We are all spiritually dead or separated in our sins, but more because we are sinners, not because Adam was a supposed Federal Head of the race (Augustinian). We cannot blame it on Adam (except the consequences of the Fall on the human race) and are responsible for our own sins, not Adam's.

Where have I claimed the life of God is of no effect? I acknowledge the life of God, but I also talk about the OTHER images used in Scripture for salvation. You are unbalanced to make 'life' the only truth about salvation.

The Holy Spirit is not unholy. To even suggest I imply this shows that you deliberately misrepresent my beliefs. God is holy! I worship the Spirit; I do not blaspheme Him. Your foolish accusations leave you with zilch credibility to even dialogue intelligently here.

I have said (you do not deny this) that believers can commit adultery. If you think they are holy in that specific sinful action, you are contrary to Scripture. A given moral choice is either virtuous/praiseworthy or vice/blameworthy. It cannot be both at the same time. We are to be holy, as He is holy (I Peter 1:13-16). Sin is rebuked, not affirmed as holiness. We are holy in the sense we are sanctified or set apart to a holy God. The Holy Spirit reproduces the holy life of Christ in us (character). It is not just a one time thing at conversion with no ongoing transformation. The Bible reveals reality and Paul dealt with those who used grace as a license to sin (Romans; Corinthians). Our setting apart will be manifest in reality or it is illusory.

Where have you been lately? Ca va bien?

[godrulz]

Originally posted by elected4ever

:up:

Two peas in a pod. You have the same put-down spirit and foolish judgment of genuine believers denying the efficacy of the cross to save those who do not buy into minority theological views. We are saved by faith, not by affirming Mid-Acts or Bob George views.

[elected4ever]

What is a mid acts or Bob George view?

[godrulz]

Originally posted by elected4ever

What is a mid acts or Bob George view?

Ask those here like sozo who believe much of Bob George. Ask Clete about Mid-Acts. My point was not that you believe these things (though George's Classic Christianity also emphasizes 'life' to the exclusion of other equally valid concepts), but that you make your articulations about soteriology a criteria for salvation. Rejecting Calvinistic 'OSAS' (I know you do not think you are a Calvinist though you have some of their ideas) is not tantamount to rejecting the person and work of Christ.

[Sozo]

Originally posted by godrulz

Adam's children were born in his physical likeness. Adam did not die physically at the moment he sinned. He did die spiritually There you go again, contradicting yourself.

When the bible tells us that Adam was created in the image of God according to His likeness, what do YOU think that likeness and image is referring?

(Oh wait a minute, I forgot :doh: YOU don't respond to simple questions, but "choose" to run off at the mouth talking about things YOU know NOTHING about.)

Adam was created alive spiritually. And yes, when he sinned, he died spirtually. That is why (as Paul proves in Romans 5) that Seth was born dead (spiritually) in the image and likeness of Adam.

YOU can cut the "Augustine" crap! No one here is going to fall for your deceptive trickery and lies. Your constant perversions of the gospel and outright hatred of Jesus has grown old. Where have I claimed the life of God is of no effect? YOU deny the reality of Christ in you, and YOU deny it in others. YOU claim and teach that it is a metaphor, and not truth.

I acknowledge the life of God, but I also talk about the OTHER images used in Scripture for salvation. It's not an "image" YOU misguided pervert, it is the reality of the very life of God indwelling those who are in Christ. It is the restoration of life that was lost by Adam through his disobedience.

For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous

Your foolish accusations leave you with zilch credibility to even dialogue intelligently here.

YOU are on your own (except for the support of a handful of atheists and cultists) in your rejection of my "accusations". It is not simply I, or many others at TOL who have exposed you, but the gospel of Jesus Christ proves you to be a godless pervert and a blasphemer.

YOUR rejection of the life of God as that which defines salvation is is enough evidence to place you outside the body of Christ, and a testimony that YOU are in fact on your way to hell.

"For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life."

[Sozo]

Originally posted by godrulz

Ask those here like sozo who believe much of Bob George. Ask Clete about Mid-Acts. My point was not that you believe these things (though George's Classic Christianity also emphasizes 'life' to the exclusion of other equally valid concepts), but that you make your articulations about soteriology a criteria for salvation. Rejecting Calvinistic 'OSAS' (I know you do not think you are a Calvinist though you have some of their ideas) is not tantamount to rejecting the person and work of Christ.

YOU are an ignorant little man.

YOU are so obsessed with what "men" say, that YOU are nothing more than a product of the minds of others and void of your own.

Bob George did not come up with the reality of the life of God indwelling those who have come to Christ by faith.

Is this the only way that YOU have to discredit people who don't fall for your demonic doctrines?

It is YOU, godrulz, who preaches another gospel!

It is YOU, godrulz, who denies the faith, and proclaims another Jesus of your own imagination.

STOP blaming others for YOUR lies.

YOU are a deceiver and a pervert.

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Sozo


YOU can cut the "Augistine" crap! No one here is going to fall for your deceptive trickery and lies. Your constant perversions of the gospel and outright hatred of Jesus has grown old. YOU deny the reality of Christ in you, and YOU deny it in others. YOU claim and teach that it is a metaphor, and not truth.



YOUR rejection of the life of God as that which defines salvation is is enough evidence to place you outside the body of Christ, and a testimony that YOU are in fact on your way to hell.

"For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life."

"Outright hatred of Jesus"...CMON, jerk. I know and love Jesus. He loves me. You grieve both of us with your petty accusations contrary to reality. You undermine His work of grace in a fellow believer due to your sectish ideas. Your conclusions are not credible nor defensible. Denying OSAS is not tantamount to hating Jesus. I have affirmed the reality of Christ in us many times. What I did say was that 'flesh' and 'born again' as phrases are metaphors for greater spiritual truth and reality. They are not to be taken with a wooden literalism. Exegetes recognize figures of speech without denying reality. Is Jesus a literal door or loaf of bread? Metaphor! Go back to English class before you rant and rave.

If the roots of your beliefs are Augustinian rather than biblical, I will call you to task. "Original sin" is specious. Your use of Romans is classic misinterpretation. If you were paying attention, you would realize you would have to teach universalism to keep the sentences parallel.

Put a reference with your quotes so we can put them in context.

The life of God defines salvation, but so do several other equally prominent NT concepts. Your tunnel vision has made you blind to other glorious revelations relating to the person and work of Christ in redemption.

[Sozo]

Originally posted by godrulz

"Outright hatred of Jesus"...CMON, jerk. I know and love Jesus. He loves me. The "Jesus" YOU preach, perhaps, but not the historical Jesus of the bible; not the Jesus who is God the Son, proclaimed by Paul the Apostle. YOUR "Jesus", is inept, weak, and insufficient to save anyone.Your conclusions are not credible nor defensible. Only in YOUR mind :kookoo: ; a mind that is filled with doctrines of devils and self-deception about YOUR standing with God based on YOUR own abilities and strengths.Denying OSAS is not tantamount to hating Jesus. Denying that Jesus died for ALL of our sins, is a rejection of Christ, and outright hatred and disdain for the blood He shed. YOU do it every day!Exegetes recognize figures of speech without denying reality. Not EVERYTHING YOU think is a "figure of speech" is so, because YOU claim it is. Jesus is not a literal "door", but YOU have made Him a doormat!

Here are just a few examples of "reality" that you catagorically reject...

"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life".

"I give eternal life to them, and they shall never perish; and no one shall snatch them out of My hand"

"I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and delivered Himself up for me".

"For you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God"

"When Christ, who is our life, is revealed, then you also will be revealed with Him in glory"

"And the witness is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son"

"He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life"

YOU, godrulz, have repeatedly claimed that "the life" is a metaphor. For YOU, the Jesus of the bible is simply a distortion of "reality".

YOU have affirmed, without hesitation, that YOU do NOT have the life, and we concur!

[godrulz]

I affirm all of the verses you quote. Robert Shank also affirms these proof texts, but shows exegetically how they do not contradict the other verses that show the possibility of apostasy and falling away. Your exegetical and critical thinking skills are weak at times. I would not be dogmatic lest you distort the Word in context.

As you know from my Deity of Christ thread, we love and serve the same historical God-Man, the Lord Jesus Christ.

The work of redemption is sufficient to save from ALL sins. Not all men are saved, are they? If you would understand the difference between the grounds (reason for which) and the conditions (not without which) of salvation, you would have a more biblical view.

[Poly]

Originally posted by Sozo

YOUR rejection of the life of God as that which defines salvation is is enough evidence to place you outside the body of Christ, and a testimony that YOU are in fact on your way to hell.



Sozo, I don't understand how you can continually be outraged at those who think that there is some kind of work involved for salvation (which I do agree is not true) yet claim that these people who believe this way are not saved. If they are not saved because they're not doing something right then you're basing their salvation on the fact that there is something within them that they can do (works) in order to be saved. Christ's attonement was either meant for every sin or it wasn't. And it's sufficient to cover the sin of those who wrongly think that there is something that they must add to their salvation other than Christ.

[Sozo]

Originally posted by Poly

Sozo, I don't understand how you can continually be outraged at those who think that there is some kind of work involved for salvation (which I do agree is not true) yet claim that these people who believe this way are not saved. That's easy, those who teach that there is work to do are not saved. If they are not saved because they're not doing something right then you're basing their salvation on the fact that there is something within them that they can do (works) in order to be saved. Uh? :confused: The thing that they are not doing "right", is accepting Christ as Savior. godrulz has NEVER accepted the gospel of Jesus Christ. He denies the very heart of the message.Christ's attonement was either meant for every sin or it wasn't. Does that include unbelief?

"But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper shall not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you. "And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin, and righteousness, and judgment; concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me"

And it's sufficient to cover the sin of those who wrongly think that there is something that they must add to their salvation other than Christ. Unbelief must be repented of, not forgiven. That is why God does not forgive blaspheme of the Holy Spirit. He (Holy Spirit) convicts those who do not believe in Jesus, and if they reject Him (Holy Spirit), there is no forgiveness. Forgiveness of sin is in Jesus, in His life. If you have the Life, then you have been redeemed and you have forgiveness of sin.

godrulz is a religionist (one who holds to a form of godliness), but he rejects what Jesus came to give to those who come to Him by faith, namely... His life!

If you do not have the Life, then you do not have the Son.

[elected4ever]

Originally posted by Sozo

That's easy, those who teach that there is work to do are not saved. Uh? :confused: The thing that they are not doing "right", is accepting Christ as Savior. godrulz has NEVER accepted the gospel of Jesus Christ. He denies the very heart of the message. Does that include unbelief?

"But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper shall not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you. "And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin, and righteousness, and judgment; concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me"

Unbelief must be repented of, not forgiven. That is why God does not forgive blaspheme of the Holy Spirit. He (Holy Spirit) convicts those who do not believe in Jesus, and if they reject Him (Holy Spirit), there is no forgiveness. Forgiveness of sin is in Jesus, in His life. If you have the Life, then you have been redeemed and you have forgiveness of sin.

godrulz is a religionist (one who holds to a form of godliness), but he rejects what Jesus came to give to those who come to Him by faith, namely... His life!

If you do not have the Life, then you do not have the Son. :up:

[Poly]

Originally posted by Sozo

....those who teach that there is work to do are not saved.



Originally posted by Sozo

A person who believes the things that you believe, is either a liar, a lunatic, or a demon from hell.



My dad loves the Lord. Not only does he say he does but I see evidence of it in his life.
Romans 10:9
"....if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved."

He's quick to give a testamony on how much he loves God and the thought of Christ's death on the cross is a very moving one to him. I've known him to be overwhelmed to the point of tears in talking about it with people. He's incredibly thankful for it. He confesses the Lord. He's not ashamed of Him. He's positive, with no doubts that God raised Christ from the dead and that He now sits at the right hand of God. Unfortunately, he holds to these same ideas that godrulz does, as do countless others, thinking that there should be some works that come forth from a believer in order to confirm his faith.

So which one does this make him, a liar, a lunatic, or a demon from hell?

He's not lying when he says the things he does about Christ. He genuinely believes in his death and ressurection for the covering of our sins.

He's not a lunatic. No howling at the moon or talking to people who aren't there.

He's not a demon. A demon couldn't have the love that he has for Christ.

So what is he?

He's a misguided Christian because of his ignorance of scripture. The works that he's done in order to "prove" his faith will have been done in vain and will be burned up just as Paul said they would.

[Sozo]

Originally posted by Poly

My dad loves the Lord. Not only does he say he does but I see evidence of it in his life.
Romans 10:9
"....if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved."

Unless godrulz is your Dad, then our discussion regarding these issues is fruitless.

As far as I know, I have never spoken with your father concerning the issues of who Christ is and what He came to give us. If your father had been provided the message of Christ, as clearly as it has been revealed to godrulz, perhaps he would not respond in a way that denies the very essence of what it is that confirms our faith, as godrulz clearly does.

To deny that salvation is the life of Christ in you (literally, not metaphorically) is to deny His resurrection, and to deny the gospel.

Let's stick to the person who IS teaching a false gospel, and another Jesus, not those whom I have not had the honor of conversing with.

There is an easy way to shut me up, regarding the FACT that godrulz is an enemy of the gospel, and a blashphemer... (see my signature). It's not unusal for those in authority, in the history of the church, to open their arms of acceptance to those who preach a false gospel. It simply requires a small bit of tolerance.

[godrulz]

Poly: Thx for your mixed attempt to balance sozo's rants. You did not go far enough to rebuke him for his false accusations.

I affirm the necessity of the life of Christ in us. This is why I had a necklace with "Christ in you, the hope of glory" made when I was a new believer.

I have also agreed with Jesus that the work of God is to believe on Him. I have emphasized salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone and His finished work (Eph. 2:9-10; Rom. 1:16; Titus 3:5, etc.).

What works do you think I think are necessary for salvation or to maintain it? FAITH IS NOT A WORK! It is love and trust in a person, not one's own merits. I am too tired to do any works. What works do I do to prove my faith?

Shame on you guys for your lack of wisdom, discernment, and legalism, adding your criteria to the simplicity of the Gospel in Christ.

I have received Christ as Lord and Savior 25 years ago. Nothing more is added. If you must lie, please be specific as to how you can denigrate this.:p

[Sozo]

Originally posted by godrulz


I affirm the necessity of the life of Christ in us.

When is Christ in you?

Is this literal or a metaphor?

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Sozo

When is Christ in you?

Is this literal or a metaphor?

Christ is in you at conversion following repentant faith in Him. He comes and indwells us by the Holy Spirit. Is the Father in us? In what sense is the triune God in us? Is this explicitly revealed with explanation or just stated without explanation?

He is the glorified God-Man forever. There are not millions of Christs indwelling believers (Jesus had a face. There are not millions of clones of Christ). There is only one person of Christ. Other verses talk about the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The omnipresent Spirit of God is perhaps how Christ indwells millions of believers. When a believer's body dies and rots, is Christ still in them? Is He in our spirit? Is His indwelling relational, literal, metaphysical, metaphorical representing a spiritual truth?

Scripture states that He is in us and we are in Him. He is in the Father and the Father is in Him. There is unity in the Godhead. Christ in us does not make us Deity in the same sense as the Godhead. Scripture states the truth without giving a detailed explanation (cf. Trinity).

I affirm the indwelling Christ/Holy Spirit. This does not mean I fully understand what it means or how it logically is explained. I affirm that Christ is one person with 2 natures and that God is one spirit with 3 eternal, personal distinctions. I, nor any other theologian, can fully explain all that this means. We accept revelation by faith. It is not unreasonable, but may be beyond our finite reasoning.

I am saved based on the death and life of Christ, the indwelling of the Spirit, the grace of God, etc. I am not saved based on works or profound theological understanding.

I do not have all the answers. I know Him who is the way, truth, life...the ultimate answer...the Gospel is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes. It is foolishness to those who are perishing.

[Sir Cast-a-Lot]

i believe the lord's supper was just the passover meal, nothing more. that the jews were required to keep. and that passage was to the jews and not gentiles. the same way that head coverings did not apply the gentiles or did it? let me know your thoughts on this. fellow acts 9'ers.