Pope: Whatever religion works for you, cool

[T.Lex]

Almost as silly as Saul of Tarsus, arch-persecutor of Christians being chosen not only as an Apostle, but as the most effective and influential Apostle.

haha

Yes - and that isn't even what I was talking about.

But, that is another illustration. Saul/Paul was certainly met with... lack of confidence by people who thought they understood God's will.

Could it be, that non-believers are also Children of God? Or is it only some select ones? If that's true, how are we to know which God has selected and which He hasn't? Did not Jesus say (Matthew 25:31-46) to treat "the least" as if they were Jesus Himself? This includes strangers - people who we don't even know their religious background. To me, this says that God's love extends beyond the Believers.

I know there is a split of authority on this, but "strangers" is specifically referenced. Particularly when He changes up the formulation when describing the accursed. For the blessed, they fed/clothed/quenched "my brothers." For the accursed, they failed to feed/clothe/quench the least "of these" - of those who were hungry/oppressed/thirsty. The implication of family is removed. That seems important.

 

[IndyDave1776]

haha

Yes - and that isn't even what I was talking about.

But, that is another illustration. Saul/Paul was certainly met with... lack of confidence by people who thought they understood God's will.

Could it be, that non-believers are also Children of God? Or is it only some select ones? If that's true, how are we to know which God has selected and which He hasn't? Did not Jesus say (Matthew 25:31-46) to treat "the least" as if they were Jesus Himself? This includes strangers - people who we don't even know their religious background. To me, this says that God's love extends beyond the Believers.

I know there is a split of authority on this, but "strangers" is specifically referenced. Particularly when He changes up the formulation when describing the accursed. For the blessed, they fed/clothed/quenched "my brothers." For the accursed, they failed to feed/clothe/quench the least "of these" - of those who were hungry/oppressed/thirsty. The implication of family is removed. That seems important.

The point where I see the need for caution is that God's love extending beyond the generally recognized body of believers has been clearly manifested over a long period of time. Jonah wasn't so peevish because he was unwilling to be a prophet of God per se, but rather because he didn't want to do anything that might lead those worthless MFSBs from Nineveh out of judgment. That said, he preached repentance, not that I'm OK, you're OK, now let's all sing Kumbaya. Same deal with Ruth, a *gasp* Moabite in the lineage of Christ, but she and her mother in law turned away from Moabite paganism with repentance and turning to God again being the critical element. My take on it is that anyone who is going to turn to God will have the opportunity to receive sufficient truth, which need not be the entire body of the Scripture and accepted doctrines of any Christian group. After all, Abraham was reckoned righteous (treated as if righteous through grace and not merit of works) for believing God, even though all Abraham had available to believe was that man was not righteous and God would make a very vaguely described way of redemption. This did not, however, allow for continuing to embrace any form of pagan belief.

The Great Commission calls on the believer to go forth and declare the Gospel to every living creature. It does not say that they will receive it, and it does not say that if they don't they are to be treated as spiritually equal, but rather the implication as fleshed out in other parts of the Scripture is that they are to be treated as people who are lost and misguided with love an patience. It also doesn't say that you are compelled to open your borders and allow them to overrun and overwhelm your land.

 

[T.Lex]

The point where I see the need for caution is that God's love extending beyond the generally recognized body of believers has been clearly manifested over a long period of time.

I think there is a corollary risk on the other side - refusing to engage with unbelievers BECAUSE they are unbelievers. That is not a good reason.

And, in the "attract more bees with honey" strategy, dialogue is probably more effective than arguing.

The Great Commission calls on the believer to go forth and declare the Gospel to every living creature. It does not say that they will receive it, and it does not say that if they don't they are to be treated as spiritually equal, but rather the implication as fleshed out in other parts of the Scripture is that they are to be treated as people who are lost and misguided with love an patience. It also doesn't say that you are compelled to open your borders and allow them to overrun and overwhelm your land.

I was right with you until the last sentence.

I mean, I agree in principle that some self-protection is good. But... do you have scriptural context for refusing to open borders? Particularly New Testament support? I mean, the OT is full of the Israelites protecting their homeland, or trying to, at least.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I think there is a corollary risk on the other side - refusing to engage with unbelievers BECAUSE they are unbelievers. That is not a good reason.

And, in the "attract more bees with honey" strategy, dialogue is probably more effective than arguing.


I was right with you until the last sentence.

I mean, I agree in principle that some self-protection is good. But... do you have scriptural context for refusing to open borders? Particularly New Testament support? I mean, the OT is full of the Israelites protecting their homeland, or trying to, at least.

OK, I was a little ambiguous. The caution I had in mind was that of rejecting the duty to reach out to the lost. We are on the same page here even if my turn of phrase could have been clearer.

As for the open borders, so far as I am aware, the issue is not addressed in the New Testament. My remark was directed at the misguided notion embraced by some that somehow we have an obligation that simply does not exist. I did not mean to imply that there was a mandate NOT do to so, just the absence of any articulable mandate TO do so.

 

[T.Lex]

OK, I was a little ambiguous. The caution I had in mind was that of rejecting the duty to reach out to the lost. We are on the same page here even if my turn of phrase could have been clearer.

As for the open borders, so far as I am aware, the issue is not addressed in the New Testament. My remark was directed at the misguided notion embraced by some that somehow we have an obligation that simply does not exist. I did not mean to imply that there was a mandate NOT do to so, just the absence of any articulable mandate TO do so.

Ok, but I have to tell you, you're making it MUCH more difficult to disagree about stuff.

Because transubstantiation.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Ok, but I have to tell you, you're making it MUCH more difficult to disagree about stuff.

Because transubstantiation.

I can be difficult that way!

 

[rambone]

Importantly for this conversation, Jesus reminds people that the Gentiles are worthy of saving. Not because they follow the Law, but because of God's love.

He first points to Elijah's visit to a widow in Sidon (1 Kings 17:8-24), which was a Gentile nation. Elijah provided miracles to her for her help, as the Lord commanded. But, from Jesus, it is clear that she was not Hebrew. Yet, God - the Hebrew God - chose her for His purposes.

His second example was Naaman, the Syrian, who was healed of leprosy by Elisha (2 Kings 5:1-14). Naaman was not just a Syrian (Gentile), but a commander of the Syrian army. The Syrian army was responsible for the killing and kidnapping of Israelites - the chosen people. This was the enemy. Someone who had actively sought the destruction of Israel. Yet, pursuant to God's will, Elisha cured Naaman of his leprosy.

This idea - that non-Jews could be favored in God's will - was enough to have Jesus' hometown crowd try to kill him. They entirely rejected the Christ and His teachings because they did not understand it. Because it was not consistent with their own ideas about how things work.

How silly that sounds, eh?

God's salvation has always been available to the entirety of humanity. The thing is, you get saved on the terms of the One True God, not based on the demonic "truths" of a pagan religion. In all those examples, the saved person gets pulled out of paganism and sees the truth, and follows by faith. And the same went for Saul, and others.

So, I hope that clears up the silliness that God is a respecter of persons. He is not. But that is not what the OP is about.

The "all children of God" thing cannot be plausible when Jesus called his rejecters children of the devil. The Pharisees had a religion, didn't they? They were devout. They had religious trinkets. They had rituals. They followed a lot of rules. They even recognized the Abrahamic God. Shouldn't that be enough??? Aren't they coming to God in their own special way?! Jesus said they were the spawn of Satan. Oops.

 

[T.Lex]

God's salvation has always been available to the entirety of humanity.

So, on that, at least, you agree with the pope.

So, I hope that clears up the silliness that God is a respecter of persons. He is not. But that is not what the OP is about.

Nor is it what the pope said.

The "all children of God" thing cannot be plausible when Jesus called his rejecters children of the devil.

God's salvation has always been available to the entirety of humanity.

So, I guess this is a definitional thing. You understand "children of God" to be the subset of humanity that have accepted Him as the one true God?

The Pharisees had a religion, didn't they? They were devout.

Ok - you want to talk Matthew 23? This (the "devout" part) is untrue, at least according to Jesus.

They had religious trinkets. They had rituals. They followed a lot of rules. They even recognized the Abrahamic God. Shouldn't that be enough??? Aren't they coming to God in their own special way?! Jesus said they were the spawn of Satan. Oops.

"Scribes and Pharisees" that He calls hypocrites because, while their actions may be consistent with the contemporary understanding of the Law, their hearts were not. Plus, he also calls them snakes. Were they actually snakes?

ETA:
Matthew 23:8, "... you are all brothers." Speaking to the crowds and disciples. He also starts out by saying to follow what the Pharisees teach, but do not do as they do. Awkward to follow what the "spawn of Satan" would teach, eh?

ETA2:
Sorry, I just thought of something else. In Gesthemane (I think), Jesus calls Peter "Satan." Not "spawn of Satan" but actually Satan. Same "rock, foundation of my church" Peter, yet he calls him Satan. Maybe there's something else going on here, contextually?

 

[rambone]

So, I guess this is a definitional thing. You understand "children of God" to be the subset of humanity that have accepted Him as the one true God?

Yes. Christianity has always understood this biblical truth. Even the Roman Catholics affirmed that until recently.

Do you think everybody goes to Heaven? All mentions of Hell were fables?

Ok - you want to talk Matthew 23? This (the "devout" part) is untrue, at least according to Jesus.

"Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for them [Jews] is that they may be saved. For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness." (Romans 10:1-3)

They were zealous for God, but wallowed in deadly ignorance. Notice Paul said the Jews were not saved in their current condition, and needed prayer.

"Scribes and Pharisees" that He calls hypocrites because, while their actions may be consistent with the contemporary understanding of the Law, their hearts were not. Plus, he also calls them snakes. Were they actually snakes?

They are also ravenous wolves coming to destroy the flock of sheep. Metaphors for enemies of God.

ETA:
Matthew 23:8, "... you are all brothers." Speaking to the crowds and disciples. He also starts out by saying to follow what the Pharisees teach, but do not do as they do. Awkward to follow what the "spawn of Satan" would teach, eh?

"Brothers" can refer to countrymen, or even humankind. We all have common ancestors and one creator. We are physical, earthly brothers.

BUT we are not all spiritual brothers. The word does not imply that all are saved. NOT "children of God."

Do you think Jesus saying "brothers" negates what He said elsewhere, in other contexts? Jesus said more about Hell than every other person in the bible combined. He was bluntly, offensively exclusive.

ETA2:
Sorry, I just thought of something else. In Gesthemane (I think), Jesus calls Peter "Satan." Not "spawn of Satan" but actually Satan.

Peter's rebellion came from the breath of Satan. All rejection of Christ comes from Satan, who is "the god of this world that blinds the minds of the unbelievers" (2Cor 4:4). Good thing Peter had time to repent and submit to the will of the Father, let Christ fulfill his earthly mission and be the perfect sacrifice. If Peter would have followed Satan's lie without repentance he would have been Satan's child, and not an adopted son of God.

 

[foszoe]

Hey I listened to a John MacArthur panel on Election and Predestination over the weekend.

Learned several things and it raised several questions. It also answered one, I believe. Several made the point that unless you affirm Total Depravity, you will never get the rest of TULIP. That helped me understand why my Wesleyan - Armenian mother and I disagree on the "sin nature " concept. I think Armenians have mostly moved from free will to Total Depravity but affirm a universal grace action that the Calvinist would not.

Now I know why I don't agree with ULIP, because I would deny the T.

They also made some comments that by the end, made me think Purgatory and Assurance are sides of the Assurance coin. One wants to assure you now, in this life, the other in the next.

Of course it was one lecture. Maybe 90 minutes long.

 

[PaulF]

The bible is a collection of the words of men, and is full of factual errors.

In the so-called "inerrant word of God", Jacob created striped sheep by breeding them within sight of "rods". This isn't how genetics works now, and it isn't how genetics worked in ancient times, either. Shouldn't "God", the creator of everything, have a functional knowledge of his own creation?

Same book, we learn that the different races of the world came from the differences in the sons of Noah. We're this true, the human genome would have recorded it. The story is total nonsense...it cannot be supported by fact.

This book claims that the sky is a "firmament" to which the stars are attached, and it's function is to "separate the waters below from the waters above". That's a pretty simple detail to get wildly wrong. The sky is not a firmament, and there is no water above it. If it was really God telling this story...why is it so wrong?

God supposedly came to earth, as a human being, to leave the most important message in the history of mankind...EVER, and he didn't even bother to write it down? Better still, none of the "apostles" wrote it down, either! Is hearsay really the best transmittal method for a message as important as how to avoid otherwise inevitable eternal damnation? The gospels were not written by first-hand witnesses, there is no original source material to which to refer, and they don't even tell the same story.

If this book is supposed to have all the answers...why are so many of the answers verifiably wrong?

I agree with the pope here: it doesn't matter what religion you follow, they were all made by men...no one is more "godly" than the next.

 

[foszoe]

The bible is a collection of the words of men, and is full of factual errors.

In the so-called "inerrant word of God", Jacob created striped sheep by breeding them within sight of "rods". This isn't how genetics works now, and it isn't how genetics worked in ancient times, either. Shouldn't "God", the creator of everything, have a functional knowledge of his own creation?

Same book, we learn that the different races of the world came from the differences in the sons of Noah. We're this true, the human genome would have recorded it. The story is total nonsense...it cannot be supported by fact.

This book claims that the sky is a "firmament" to which the stars are attached, and it's function is to "separate the waters below from the waters above". That's a pretty simple detail to get wildly wrong. The sky is not a firmament, and there is no water above it. If it was really God telling this story...why is it so wrong?

God supposedly came to earth, as a human being, to leave the most important message in the history of mankind...EVER, and he didn't even bother to write it down? Better still, none of the "apostles" wrote it down, either! Is hearsay really the best transmittal method for a message as important as how to avoid otherwise inevitable eternal damnation? The gospels were not written by first-hand witnesses, there is no original source material to which to refer, and they don't even tell the same story.

If this book is supposed to have all the answers...why are so many of the answers verifiably wrong?

I agree with the pope here: it doesn't matter what religion you follow, they were all made by men...no one is more "godly" than the next.

I said a prayer for your headaches and hope you are filling better.

You paint with a broad brush. The majority of Christians would not make the claim that the Bible is a historical or scientific textbook. God works with human beings not in spite of them.

When you explain gravity to a two year old, you use an apple, not necessarily an equation with G M m r, and a 2 etc. God does the same thing.

 

[PaulF]

I said a prayer for your headaches and hope you are filling better.

You paint with a broad brush. The majority of Christians would not make the claim that the Bible is a historical or scientific textbook. God works with human beings not in spite of them.

When you explain gravity to a two year old, you use an apple, not necessarily an equation with G M m r, and a 2 etc. God does the same thing.

I do feel better, thank you for thinking of me and including me in your prayers! (Even as a non-believer I'll take any help that's offered when it comes to those headaches...)

 

[T.Lex]

Yes. Christianity has always understood this biblical truth. Even the Roman Catholics affirmed that until recently.

Again, it is more a context issue. The definition depends on the context.

Do you think everybody goes to Heaven?

I don't think so, but I can also admit that I do not know for sure. Yes, blessed are those who can believe without seeing the wounds. That is hard for me.

All mentions of Hell were fables?

I don't think so. At a certain level, I hope that everyone does make it to heaven - can share in God's love. But, I do not believe things work like that.

"Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for them [Jews] is that they may be saved. For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness." (Romans 10:1-3)

They were zealous for God, but wallowed in deadly ignorance. Notice Paul said the Jews were not saved in their current condition, and needed prayer.

You are not addressing my point. Jesus, Himself, described the sins of the Pharisees in Matthew 23. They were outwardly zealous, and their teachings were the Law. But on the inside, they were not devout. Or do you agree with that?

They are also ravenous wolves coming to destroy the flock of sheep. Metaphors for enemies of God.

Yet, you take "spawn of Satan" literally? Why? To what end?

"Brothers" can refer to countrymen, or even humankind. We all have common ancestors and one creator. We are physical, earthly brothers.

Indeed. Assuming, as Christians, that all humanity is descended from Adam and Eve, who were formed by God, we are all "Children of God."

BUT we are not all spiritual brothers. The word does not imply that all are saved. NOT "children of God."

And here is where context is obviously important. Jesus, Himself, was addressing crowds and disciples. To Him, they/we were all brothers. And this (again, obviously) was before His crucifixion. To Him, in terms of who He sought to encircle in His teachings, there were no distinctions between Gentile or Jew. (In fact, the early church wrestled with whether Gentiles had to convert to Judaism first, but that's probably for another thread.)

This is before the Apostles (and the disciples) had the issues involved in the aftermath of the crucifixion. That, necessarily, was a divisive issue.

Do you think Jesus saying "brothers" negates what He said elsewhere, in other contexts? Jesus said more about Hell than every other person in the bible combined. He was bluntly, offensively exclusive.

At times, yes. He was also very inclusive.

Peter's rebellion came from the breath of Satan. All rejection of Christ comes from Satan, who is "the god of this world that blinds the minds of the unbelievers" (2Cor 4:4). Good thing Peter had time to repent and submit to the will of the Father, let Christ fulfill his earthly mission and be the perfect sacrifice. If Peter would have followed Satan's lie without repentance he would have been Satan's child, and not an adopted son of God.

So, again, Jesus was not literal, right?

But, also taking your own point forward, for those who do not (yet) follow Christ, it is also not too late for them, right? Like Saul, and to a MUCH more temporary extent Peter, there is still the opportunity for them to change. If that is the case, then what is the issue with "meeting them where they are" and being an example of Christ's love?

 

[IndyDave1776]

The bible is a collection of the words of men, and is full of factual errors.

In the so-called "inerrant word of God", Jacob created striped sheep by breeding them within sight of "rods". This isn't how genetics works now, and it isn't how genetics worked in ancient times, either. Shouldn't "God", the creator of everything, have a functional knowledge of his own creation?

Same book, we learn that the different races of the world came from the differences in the sons of Noah. We're this true, the human genome would have recorded it. The story is total nonsense...it cannot be supported by fact.

This book claims that the sky is a "firmament" to which the stars are attached, and it's function is to "separate the waters below from the waters above". That's a pretty simple detail to get wildly wrong. The sky is not a firmament, and there is no water above it. If it was really God telling this story...why is it so wrong?

God supposedly came to earth, as a human being, to leave the most important message in the history of mankind...EVER, and he didn't even bother to write it down? Better still, none of the "apostles" wrote it down, either! Is hearsay really the best transmittal method for a message as important as how to avoid otherwise inevitable eternal damnation? The gospels were not written by first-hand witnesses, there is no original source material to which to refer, and they don't even tell the same story.

If this book is supposed to have all the answers...why are so many of the answers verifiably wrong?

I agree with the pope here: it doesn't matter what religion you follow, they were all made by men...no one is more "godly" than the next.

Paul, I feel compelled to point out the following:

1. A common theme with miraculous occurrences in the Bible is that God essentially called on people to do something stupid as an act of faith as a requirement of receiving the miracle. Breeding sheep in front of a rod, asking a rock for water, dipping in a muddy river to cure leprosy, smacking the ground with an arrow to grant victory over enemies in combat, all hinging on 'Do you trust Me enough to do something goofy when people are watching?'

2. If you take, as the theologians say, the whole counsel of the Scripture, that upper firmament supporting the upper water was removed as the immediate cause of the universal flood. This also coincided with an abrupt halt to the incredibly long lives recorded previous to that point. Whether or not you believe that is one thing, but it is consistent if you take the Bible as an all or nothing proposition.

3. While there is disagreement about the time and circumstances of the writing of the New Testament, it is far from universally accepted that it was not written in a relatively compact period of time. As for the differences, what I see is focus on different elements, not contradicting each other. Any of our resident lawmen can speak volumes about interviewing 5 different witnesses and getting 6 different stories, all of which may be perfectly true but focusing on different elements of the event.

 

[rambone]

Again, it is more a context issue. The definition depends on the context.

Certainly. In the context of Christian theology, those words have specific meaning. He took language from the bible and applied it severely out of context.

I don't think so, but I can also admit that I do not know for sure. Yes, blessed are those who can believe without seeing the wounds. That is hard for me.

I don't think so. At a certain level, I hope that everyone does make it to heaven - can share in God's love. But, I do not believe things work like that.

We have it on the authority of Jesus Christ, and even individual scripture accounts, telling us not everybody gets a trophy. Afterlife is going to be so bad for Judas (classic rejecter of Christ) that it would better if he was never born.

Have you ever read Revelation? Holy smokes. How can any of that judgement give the impression of everyone living happily ever after? There's no way the two ideas go together. The bible is inseparable from massive and watchful judgement.

You are not addressing my point. Jesus, Himself, described the sins of the Pharisees in Matthew 23. They were outwardly zealous, and their teachings were the Law. But on the inside, they were not devout. Or do you agree with that?

Of course they were inwardly devout, they believed deeply enough to kill for their beliefs. They were "zealous [devout] but not according to knowledge." Their high levels of devotion buy them nothing with God, since they were devoted to Satan's lie of self-righteousness: earning Heaven through keeping rules (**no savior required**).

Jesus called them hypocrites in his fiery sermon because all self-righteous people are necessarily hypocrites. Nobody can keep the entire law perfectly. The honest person says he cannot live up to God's divine standard, admits his sin, and requires a savior.

Yet, you take "spawn of Satan" literally? Why? To what end?

I don't know how to take this question. What is my end for believing Christ? I believe He was Truth embodied. I believe souls are on the line. Christians are to contend for the faith, and make disciples of all nations.

Literal... Well, we aren't talking about physical procreation. We are talking about people taking after the spiritual nature of another: either God or Satan. Those who are self-righteous Christ-rejecters take the spiritual nature of Satan: children of the devil. Those who believe in Christ are imparted his righteousness and take on the spiritual nature of Christ: children of God.

The Pharisees were literally the spiritual children of the devil. Jesus meant it.

Indeed. Assuming, as Christians, that all humanity is descended from Adam and Eve, who were formed by God, we are all "Children of God."

Its rather obvious the Pope was not making a commercial about our genetic similarity; it had spirituality written all over it. The fact is the bible never describes humanity that way, so it was careless language. There are multiple biblical references to people being sons of the devil.

Here's Apostle Paul: "You son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, full of all deceit and villainy, will you not stop making crooked the straight paths of the Lord?" (Acts 13:9-10)

Want to be a child of God? Ask Him to adopt you by believing in his Son...

"But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God." (John 1:12)

"But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith." (Gal. 3:25-26)

At times, yes. He was also very inclusive.

Inclusive in the sense that He calls everyone. To those who reject, there is clear exclusion. This is illustrated in dozens of places. Plenty of examples in the OP.

So, again, Jesus was not literal, right?

I couldn't say that. Satan might have literally been there inspiring the dialogue.

But, also taking your own point forward, for those who do not (yet) follow Christ, it is also not too late for them, right? Like Saul, and to a MUCH more temporary extent Peter, there is still the opportunity for them to change. If that is the case, then what is the issue with "meeting them where they are" and being an example of Christ's love?

The reality of where they are is on a course for judgement. There is urgency to preach the gospel and tell them about the only way to salvation. Meet them where they are, with love, and tell them the truth.

I'll be happy to explain salvation again. The person must repent of sin and confess Jesus as Lord, believing (truly believing) that He was the Son of God and died as a perfect sacrifice for sin, then rose again.

It is not too late until your last breath.

 

[T.Lex]

Certainly. In the context of Christian theology, those words have specific meaning. He took language from the bible and applied it severely out of context.

And yet, literally, he did not. Unless you reject Genesis.

We have it on the authority of Jesus Christ, and even individual scripture accounts, telling us not everybody gets a trophy. Afterlife is going to be so bad for Judas (classic rejecter of Christ) that it would better if he was never born.

I think Judas is an interesting case. Without him, the crucifixion doesn't happen. He played the role intended for him. He is as close as we can get to someone who was destined for Hell. Unless some divine intervention saved him.

Have you ever read Revelation? Holy smokes. How can any of that judgement give the impression of everyone living happily ever after?

Yeah, it is pretty bleak in some ways, and full of hope in others. It is a prophecy. It does not discourage me from hope.

Of course they were inwardly devout, they believed deeply enough to kill for their beliefs.

Please read Matthew 23 about. The entire diatribe focuses - sometimes specifically - on how they were NOT inwardly devout.

They were "zealous [devout] but not according to knowledge."

Zealous and devout are not the same. I'd invite our Greek interpreter to share with us his view of that.

Their high levels of devotion buy them nothing with God, since they were devoted to Satan's lie of self-righteousness: earning Heaven through keeping rules (**no savior required**).

You are conflating 2 different things. Self-righteousness and rule-keeping. The whole point was that they were NOT keeping the rules. They were stating them, enforcing them, and then not acting according to them. That is what was hypocritical.

I don't know how to take this question. What is my end for believing Christ?

No. Why would I even ask that. Why do you interpret all the other references as allegorical, yet the spawn of Satan one literally? Truly, what does it serve to interpret it that way?

Literal... Well, we aren't talking about physical procreation. We are talking about people taking after the spiritual nature of another: either God or Satan. Those who are self-righteous Christ-rejecters take the spiritual nature of Satan: children of the devil. Those who believe in Christ are imparted his righteousness and take on the spiritual nature of Christ: children of God.

The Pharisees were literally the spiritual children of the devil. Jesus meant it.

Then why follow what they say - which Jesus SPECIFICALLY said to do. Did he not mean that?

Or, is it possible that all of the references were metaphors, culminating in one that was sure to get significant attention?

Again, why do you interpret 1 of them literally, and the rest figuratively?

Here's Apostle Paul: "You son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, full of all deceit and villainy, will you not stop making crooked the straight paths of the Lord?" (Acts 13:9-10)

Referring to a magician, a false prophet. Someone who was trying to co-opt Jesus' message. Not an entirety of people.

Inclusive in the sense that He calls everyone. To those who reject, there is clear exclusion. This is illustrated in dozens of places. Plenty of examples in the OP.

*See the reply at the end.

I couldn't say that. Satan might have literally been there inspiring the dialogue.

What "I couldn't say"? C'mon, you have to have an interpretation for this. Or do you allow that, perhaps, it was metaphorical?

The reality of where they are is on a course for judgement. There is urgency to preach the gospel and tell them about the only way to salvation. Meet them where they are, with love, and tell them the truth.

Kinda like the pope.

It is not too late until your last breath.

So, it is a process. "Rejected" is more like "rejecting so far" as long as we are alive. For those of different faiths, it is then fair to say that they "are rejecting" - not necessarily "rejected." Even for them, it is not too late until their last breath.

Or did you mean me specifically.

 

[foszoe]

I'll be happy to explain salvation again. The person must repent of sin and confess Jesus as Lord, believing (truly believing) that He was the Son of God and died as a perfect sacrifice for sin, then rose again.

It is not too late until your last breath.

Your definition includes that first you must be predestined doesn't it?

Also if you believe that very last statement then you believe that universal salvation is possible.

 

[JettaKnight]

Hey I listened to a John MacArthur panel on Election and Predestination over the weekend.

Whether by coincidence or intention, T is what the rest of the five points depend on.


For a point of reference, Limited atonement is the sticky wicket for many.

Hence the joke (albeit a lame one) we tell, "What do you call a four point Calvinist?"




"An Arminian."

 

[JettaKnight]

If this book is supposed to have all the answers...why are so many of the answers verifiably wrong?

The Bible was written for us not to us.

You're reading the Bible expecting a level of detail and accuracy that God never intended to provide. You're reading with a desire to see how things work. The ancient Israelites wanted to know why things are there. Stars in the sky were completely irrelevant unless they served a purpose in their world.

Do you really expect the Bible to have a detailed explanation genomics? Great - that would be relevant for a small fraction of time that the book has existed. How do you think that would have been received by everyone else? You can't say the "answers [are] verifiably wrong" if the answers don't apply to the questions you are asking.

Ironically, you Paul, fall in the same camp as the young earthers - trying to exact a level of detail and accuracy that was never intended to be there. "The Bible should fit my needs and wants right now. I want scientific facts that apply to my society and level of scientific understanding. Right meow!"