Pope: Whatever religion works for you, cool

[IndyDave1776]

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."

I would argue that the problem with limited atonement is a false dilemma. My understanding of it as I have been taught by strict practitioners of this principle is that it does not imply that Christ's sacrifice was inadequate for all sin (the argument most detractors seem to throw at it) but rather addresses the truth that not all will come to salvation, or in other words, it is an acknowledgement that universal salvation is not going to happen, as opposed to a declaration that 'there are only so many tickets'.

My biggest problem with this entire argument is that as I have studied it out, I keep seeing two different paradigms that eventually lead to the same point, and therefore consider it a less than worthwhile investment of my time to debate it out when there are productive endeavors to pursue.

 

[PaulF]

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!"

Nonsense. I expect that "truths" written by the "inspired hand of God himself" actually be, well, true.

This book is supposed to contain important information sourced directly from God, Himself. It is the faithful that claim that book has all the "answers", not me. Many of the verifiable "answers" in the book are wrong. I think it is foolish to expect that the unverifiable "answers" from that book are going to be any more reliable.

There are only three options here:

1) "God" delivered factually incorrect messages to mankind, for whatever His reasons might be, and did it many times over.

2) Humans mis-transcribed and/or misinterpreted the messages.

3) The messages are not actually from God.

Based on what we know about the intentions and practices of power-hungry men, I believe your predicating statement is incorrect...the bible was written by us.

 

[T.Lex]

It is the faithful that claim that book has all the "answers", not me.

The answers are to different questions.

If I asked you how many colors there are, what is the answer? It depends on context, right? Artistic primary colors? RGB? CMYK? The light spectrum?

Your selection of excerpts that appear to be scientific, are not and never have been. That does not mean that they inherently do not come from God.

 

[JettaKnight]

Paul, only fools expect or claim that the Bible has exact scientific answers, phrased and detailed in such a way that satisfy our peculiar, modern need for "how does everything work", be they Christians (e.g. young earthers) or Atheist.

There are only three options here:

1) "God" delivered factually incorrect messages to mankind, for whatever His reasons might be, and did it many times over.

2) Humans mis-transcribed and/or misinterpreted the messages.

3) The messages are not actually from God.

I disagree with your limited options and add a fourth:
4) The message is being misinterpreted by the modern reader(s).

HERMANEUTICS.

Based on what we know about the intentions and practices of power-hungry men, I believe your predicating statement is incorrect...the bible was written by us.

I know you want to twist this into a man vs. God thing, but it's not. It's an "our modern, naturalistic, enlightened culture" vs. "the ancient functional and story based culture of the ancients". Remember that Genesis is 6000+ years old - no, it's wasn't even close to be written by us.

Heck, go read the BBI's threads about his time in Saudi Arabia on INGO. Even between two modern cultures there's still a disconnect in cultural norms that affect verbal communication in a very similar manner.

 

[PaulF]

Paul, only fools expect or claim that the Bible has exact scientific answers, phrased and detailed in such a way that satisfy our peculiar, modern need for "how does everything work", be they Christians (e.g. young earthers) or Atheist.

Again, I'm not asking for any such thing.

If the bible is god's word, I expect the information contained within it to be true.

The bible is full of information that is factually incorrect...in other words: not true.

When information in the bible can be verified, but turns out to be untrue it suggests that the bible is not the inerrant word of God, but rather the words of men. If the bible cannot be trusted in matters that are verifiable, how convinced should I allow myself to be of the unverifiable claims made in that book?

I disagree with your limited options and add a fourth:
4) The message is being misinterpreted by the modern reader(s).

So...option #2, then?

I know you want to twist this into a man vs. God thing, but it's not. It's an "our modern, naturalistic, enlightened culture" vs. "the ancient functional and story based culture of the ancients". Remember that Genesis is 6000+ years old - no, it's wasn't even close to be written by us.

Heck, go read the BBI's threads about his time in Saudi Arabia on INGO. Even between two modern cultures there's still a disconnect in cultural norms that affect verbal communication in a very similar manner.

JK, I want to turn this into no such thing. Believe in whatever gods you wish. I am simply pointing out that the bible looks and reads like an ancient book about God, not the inerrant word of God. Trusting your mortal soul to the same book that says the sky is solid and holds back the "waters above" seems like a pretty risky move.

 

[T.Lex]

If the bible is god's word, I expect the information contained within it to be true.

The bible is full of information that is factually incorrect...in other words: not true.

Ok, Paul, because I was curious myself, I did a little digging - both in scripture and on the interwebz. Some interesting stuff.

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?

This paper does better than I could to explain the Mendelian genetics at work in that passage. It is true that the striped rods was a reflection of imperfect understanding of genetics, but the results were plausible.

https://www.scienceandchristianbelief.org/serve_pdf_free.php?filename=SCB+13-1+Pearson.pdf

Moreover, the practical observations of inherited characteristics makes it possible that Jacob's wager for his wages was the product of divine insight.

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 might be compelling if we knew, genetically, where the races came from. We know from some of the latest DNA "archeology" that there was breeding across archaic humans. I'm not totally sure where the non-sapiens fit into Genesis, but I think the safest assumption is that Genesis refers to "modern humans." God created the other homo groups (BTW, there are some interesting non-biblical traditions that account for this, but they tend to be kinda racist), but they are not necessarily descended from Adam and Eve.

There is also evidence of significant flooding events in antiquity that could account for the biblical flood story, across different cultures. We also do know, or at least theorize, that there was a common ancestor.

Now, part of my "answer" is that science hasn't really "answered" the question you are asking, either.

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?

This gets back to what was mentioned upthread about an explanation of astronomy to people who had not really discovered it. (Arguably, other cultures had discovered it, and were quite adept at it, by the time this was all written down.)

Unless your proposition is that there is no water beyond earth?

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.

My response to this is inclusive of the nature of the Jewish Torah. The written word didn't come along until MUCH after the events that the Bible/Torah describe. Even then, universal literacy is a very modern accomplishment. Things were not written because the people involved couldn't, or didn't see any value in it at the time.

 

[indiucky]

I disagree with your limited options and add a fourth:
4) The message is being misinterpreted by the modern reader(s).

^^^^^^^^This....

Beginning in the 1950's folks starting saying there was no proof of the biblical account of Exodus during the time of Ramses....We now have digs showing a large Semitic culture flourishing in Goshen and in the Delta of the Nile....There is even an Egyptian style tomb, with a statue of a Semitic looking man, with a Semitic weapon, wearing a "coat of many colors", with no bones yet no sign of looting (who would loot bones anyway?) that an Agnostic Egyptologist, Rolf Krauss believes without a shadow of a doubt belongs to the Joseph of the Old Testament....Even to the missing bones, as Joseph had asked that his remains be taken to the "Promised land" when the Jews left for burial in Israel....

So why is this not accepted as proof?

Because the Bible tells them so....There is a line in the Bible, believe added later so folks would know where they were talking about...Something about the slaves building grain storage facilities near the city of Ramses...So let me explain..

When I was a kid the local quickie mart was called "Night Owl" and that is what I still call it...In the 80's it was changed to "Sav-a-step"....If someone was writing about where I grew up they would say "He grew up near the Sav-a-Step food mart" and years later someone might say.."His bio is false...When he lived there it was Night Owl so therefore the whole bio is a lie.."

So Avaris was the city where the Hebrews lived during their time in Egypt...It's underneath and beside the city of Ramses, but because the Bible says Ramses Historians of an Atheist bent tend to say "AHA!!!! There is no proof they were there during the time of Ramses so everything else must be false.." Rather than taking a common sense approach that someone writing this down for a contemporary audience would use the word in common usage at that time...Ramses..."


I love history and I hope this makes sense...The film "Patterns of Evidence" does a much more coherent job of showing that the Exodus and the Evidence jibes pretty well it's just the Exodus happened in the Middle Kingdom Period rather than the later period of Ramses...

The film is on Netflix and gives an even handed presentation of the evidence..I had someone pm me about the film so here is a trailer for it...As I said...Split about 50/50 and even when the doubters doubt it's not because of lack of archaeological evidence...It's because the evidence is about 600-800 years older than it should be...I remember someone on here, jhudo I believe, made a comment once "That there is no evidence of Semitic people in ancient Egypt" and I thought that was kind of strange and certainly an outmoded way of thinking with the excavations taking place at Avaris...

[video=youtube;2assFIyLInE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2assFIyLInE[/video]

 

[foszoe]

How would we know anything to be objectively true?

Newtons model stood for centuries the was found not to be complete. Does that mean it was false?

Pluto was known to be the other planet until it wasn't.

A science textbook that was true 50 years ago is outdated and therefore no longer true.

I too think you have defined your options too narrowly. However, if you don't believe in God, then I think it is futile to attempt to persuade you that the Christian version of God is valid.

It really boils down to, I believe, an empirical versus an experiential worldview. I believe you and I place our emphasis in opposing directions. I will not discount experience because it can not be empirically proven when it comes to the Existence of God, or several other life experiences. You are willing to do the same with the exception of diety.

Again, I'm not asking for any such thing.

If the bible is god's word, I expect the information contained within it to be true.

The bible is full of information that is factually incorrect...in other words: not true.

When information in the bible can be verified, but turns out to be untrue it suggests that the bible is not the inerrant word of God, but rather the words of men. If the bible cannot be trusted in matters that are verifiable, how convinced should I allow myself to be of the unverifiable claims made in that book?



So...option #2, then?



JK, I want to turn this into no such thing. Believe in whatever gods you wish. I am simply pointing out that the bible looks and reads like an ancient book about God, not the inerrant word of God. Trusting your mortal soul to the same book that says the sky is solid and holds back the "waters above" seems like a pretty risky move.

 

[JettaKnight]

Again, I'm not asking for any such thing.

If the bible is god's word, I expect the information contained within it to be true.

The bible is full of information that is factually incorrect...in other words: not true.

You keep saying you're not asking for the Bible to written to you and answer your questions, yet you complain that it is inaccurate because it answers a non-scientific question in a non-scientific way given to a non-scientific culture that has no concept of outer space.

You're not asking the questions. The answers are not directed at you. Therefore, you can't apply what is written as a scientific or even pseudo-scientific answer to your question, "why are there stars?"

Yes, I understand the biblical explanation is laughably wrong, but again, it is not a true explanation of workings of the cosmos. You are misreading the Bible when you think it does make such attempt and claim. Galileo wasn't questioned because he disproved in the existence of a firmament, no, it was over heliocentrism.


Looking back over the ages, it remarkable to when pointed out to the times when mankind was suddenly enlightened to new things, only to be eclipsed by the next leap and made to look by barbarians. (germ theory, string theory, magnetism, electricity, spiritualism, etc.)

What "science" do you think will come about that makes us look barbaric?

So...option #2, then?

No. Your option number two is related to the writer. In other words, the error occurred 6,000+ years ago. I am emphatically the error is occurring right now.

 

[rambone]

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

Please quote the scripture that describes all of humanity as "Children of God." If this is proper biblical language then it will be easy to demonstrate.

I have cited numerous biblical references to the opposite effect and you are unphased.

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

So... Here is a specific biblical example of someone who is not a child of God; he is a son of the devil. Calling everyone a child of God is not biblical. Are we in accord yet? I don't think I'm being unreasonable.

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.

To clarify, are you hoping God doesn't do what the book says: judging the unrighteous?

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.

There is judgement everywhere in the bible. Weeping and gnashing of teeth; fire and sulphur forever. You've also got the rich man being scorched in Luke 16, the eternal fire burning Sodom & Gomorrah in Jude 7, all the evil souls being poured into the Lake of Fire in Revelation 20-21. There are many references to evil people being killed instantly for rebellion against God. I don't really think it's a close call, Hell is a crowded place. There is not a divine intervention for the unrepentant:

"For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, "Vengeance is mine; I will repay." And again, "The Lord will judge his people." It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." (Hebrews 10:26-31)

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

They were not devout to God in any sense. They used legalism to beat people up for breaking rules they couldn't keep themselves. Of course they were hypocrites.

They were devout, devoted, holding firm, zealous... to a lie: keeping most of the rules, most of the time, makes me righteous.

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.

That is exactly what being self-righteous is: thinking you have any righteousness at all on your own. Looking at yourself as anything better than a depraved sinner before God.

The Pharisees set up a standard that they could mostly attain and then felt good about it. They kept most of the rules, most of the time and expected that was good enough for God. Jesus saw right through it and tore them apart.

People do the same thing today; every false religious system teaches righteousness that comes from keeping most of the rules, most of the time. "Just let your good stuff outweigh your bad stuff" is the common refrain.

But God's standard is perfection. Love God perfectly and love people perfectly, forever. Be the perfect emulation of Jesus for your entire life. Complete humility, complete selflessness, complete faithfulness, complete peace, complete virtue, complete submission to God's will. If you haven't done that you are a law-breaker, not a law-keeper.

Everyone begins under the delusion of the Pharisees until he accepts his inherent wretchedness and crawls to Christ.

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?

...

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?

All I want is a faithful interpretation of the scripture. It is a sin to twist it until it becomes what I want it to say. Something politically correct.

So, tell me where this is going. You are adamant that the "children of the devil" are metaphors. Metaphors for what, exactly? Something more palatable and inclusive?

When Jesus says someone's father is the devil, is that a metaphor for a child of God?

When Jesus asks, "How will you escape being sentenced to Hell?" (Matt 23:33), is that a metaphor also?

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

Satan was described as specifically targeting Peter (Luke 22:31) so there is good reason to believe that the literal person of Satan was involved in Peter's rebuke to Jesus.

Do you think Satan is a metaphor?

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.

There's no basis to call it a process. Until they accept Christ they are dead in their trespasses, as were all Christians before spiritual rebirth. Upon hearing the gospel and believing, the Holy Spirit seals them for redemption (Eph. 1:13-14). Its a light switch, not a percentage. No one is half-saved.

 

[foszoe]

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."

Well, I didn't agree with any of the 5 points really. There were certainly things I agreed with however none involved the conclusions. The L is also a tough one because I don’t see how one can avoid making God the author of sin. Probably because I don’t see how one can avoid double predestination even if they say and teach and sincerely believe otherwise.

I am being candid and hopefully not offending.

T: I believe in synergy.
U: I believe in the elect, but not unconditionally
L: I believe in Unlimited atonement
I: I believe in resistible grace
P: I believe that you can lose your salvation , mostly because I don’t believe you obtain it until your last breath

However this is shoehorning Orthodoxy into Protestant categories and definitions which don't really fit.

The podcast defined foreknowledge and predestination in such a way that made it seem all the 5 points made God circumscribed by time. IF one accepted that, the ULIP almost fell into place logically. As for the T, Orthodoxy takes the Genesis 1 narrative of man's creation as very good, and based on that premise refuses to accept that man is inherently anything but good in his nature. The concept of sin nature, a necessity for Total Depravity we would reject on the following grounds. Nature is what makes a thing what it is. A brick is a brick even if broken, the concept of a brick is still the same. A human being, born with or disfigured by life in this world is still a human being. For us sin is external to the human being. There is no sin nature for sin is a distortion of nature not a nature unto itself. If sin is a nature, then it is hard to refute claims that God created sin. There the Orthodox view is differentiated from Catholic, Armenian, and Calvinist anthropology.

I did enjoy the history lesson on how the 5 points were actually a response to 5 points Armenianism.

It reminded me of how clear it is to rambone, after my amateur attempts to explain otherwise, that icons are idolatry.

I certainly am not an expert on TULIP after one lecture so I reserve the right to have misunderstood something.

That said, if you have suggestions for podcasts for me to listen to, give me a couple.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Well, I didn't agree with any of the 5 points really. There were certainly things I agreed with however none involved the conclusions. The L is also a tough one because I don’t see how one can avoid making God the author of sin. Probably because I don’t see how one can avoid double predestination even if they say and teach and sincerely believe otherwise.

I am being candid and hopefully not offending.

T: I believe in synergy.
U: I believe in the elect, but not unconditionally
L: I believe in Unlimited atonement
I: I believe in resistible grace
P: I believe that you can lose your salvation , mostly because I don’t believe you obtain it until your last breath

However this is shoehorning Orthodoxy into Protestant categories and definitions which don't really fit.

The podcast defined foreknowledge and predestination in such a way that made it seem all the 5 points made God circumscribed by time. IF one accepted that, the ULIP almost fell into place logically. As for the T, Orthodoxy takes the Genesis 1 narrative of man's creation as very good, and based on that premise refuses to accept that man is inherently anything but good in his nature. The concept of sin nature, a necessity for Total Depravity we would reject on the following grounds. Nature is what makes a thing what it is. A brick is a brick even if broken, the concept of a brick is still the same. A human being, born with or disfigured by life in this world is still a human being. For us sin is external to the human being. There is no sin nature for sin is a distortion of nature not a nature unto itself. If sin is a nature, then it is hard to refute claims that God created sin. There the Orthodox view is differentiated from Catholic, Armenian, and Calvinist anthropology.

I did enjoy the history lesson on how the 5 points were actually a response to 5 points Armenianism.

It reminded me of how clear it is to rambone, after my amateur attempts to explain otherwise, that icons are idolatry.

I certainly am not an expert on TULIP after one lecture so I reserve the right to have misunderstood something.

That said, if you have suggestions for podcasts for me to listen to, give me a couple.

So much to work with here!

I will start with Total Depravity. The Calvinist position is that this has been the case since a certain incident in the garden in which mankind was introduced to the knowledge of good and evil. For a fast and easy, albeit flippant way of addressing your concerns here, the Calvinist sees the Fall as like catching herpes. You can't get rid of it because it changes your DNA, and in a broadly similar way, sin became part of human nature.

Unmerited Favor is simply the issue that you cannot earn your way to righteous through works but rather that the Grace of God is the necessary vehicle for salvation.

Limited Atonement. You say you believe in unlimited atonement, but you really don't in the context it is used here. In this case, it merely addresses the fact that not everyone will come to salvation. It in no way implies that Christ's sacrifice was not adequate to cover all sin in world history.

Irresistible Grace. Calvin's position is that no one who is sees the true nature of God's Grace will be able to walk away from it.

Perseverance of the elect. I would argue that your position is not really different, but rather you take a different route to end up at the same place. According to you, your salvation is not secure until you reach the end and are still faithful. Calvin's argument is that if you are genuinely saved, you will be faithful at the moment of your death, and if you fail, you were not truly saved but rather deceived regarding your spiritual condition. You end up with the same final measure with a different explanation of how you got there.

As for the icons, an Orthodox friend once explained to me while showing me the icons how if you understood the icons, even if you couldn't read, you had the critical lessons from scripture placed before you to learn the necessary elements from creation through the Gospel. Personally, I fail to see where there is a problem with this. It isn't like you are worshiping them, just supplying them as sort of the comic book version of the Scripture if you can forgive me for choosing a flippant way of expressing my observation.

This is one of those moments at which I am reminded that often our differences are not so much disagreement on what constitutes truth but rather how we would explain the same infinite truth within the confines of our finite understanding.

 

[T.Lex]

Please quote the scripture that describes all of humanity as "Children of God." If this is proper biblical language then it will be easy to demonstrate.

Genesis 1-2, created in His image, Adam and Eve, stop me when this starts sounding familiar....

I have cited numerous biblical references to the opposite effect and you are unphased.

"Different context" does not mean "opposite." Again, makes me wonder why you intentionally interpret things a certain way....

So... Here is a specific biblical example of someone who is not a child of God; he is a son of the devil. Calling everyone a child of God is not biblical. Are we in accord yet? I don't think I'm being unreasonable.

So... is it your position the magician was LITERALLY a child of the devil, or was it figurative/allegorical/metaphorical?

To clarify, are you hoping God doesn't do what the book says: judging the unrighteous?

Different emphasis. I hope all souls, in the final reckoning, with their final breath (as you say) are judged righteous. In my limited human understanding of people and personalities, I know this to be an unlikely scenario. But, ultimately, I hope for all souls.

"For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, "Vengeance is mine; I will repay." And again, "The Lord will judge his people." It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." (Hebrews 10:26-31)

So, how does this square with your understanding of the elect? Or, is it not possible for the elect to "sin deliberately" because they are elect? In essence, because they are elect, they are bereft of the capacity to sin? And, if that is the case, what need have they of a saviour?

They were not devout to God in any sense.

Jesus disagrees. Seriously, at this point, should we just go through it verse by verse?

They used legalism to beat people up for breaking rules they couldn't keep themselves. Of course they were hypocrites.

They were devout, devoted, holding firm, zealous... to a lie: keeping most of the rules, most of the time, makes me righteous.

That is exactly what being self-righteous is: thinking you have any righteousness at all on your own. Looking at yourself as anything better than a depraved sinner before God.

The Pharisees set up a standard that they could mostly attain and then felt good about it. They kept most of the rules, most of the time and expected that was good enough for God. Jesus saw right through it and tore them apart.

You are wrong. Well, mostly wrong. Jesus did see through them, because he knew what was in their heart.

Why do you keep avoiding the issue of Jesus' command at the very beginning of his diatribe? He specifically told the crowds and his disciples to do what the Pharisees say, but to not do what they do. Why would he do that if they were literally the spawn of Satan? You think he was telling people to follow Satan?

People do the same thing today; every false religious system teaches righteousness that comes from keeping most of the rules, most of the time. "Just let your good stuff outweigh your bad stuff" is the common refrain.

Citation for "every false religious system"? Common refrain? This is you setting up a straw man.

All I want is a faithful interpretation of the scripture. It is a sin to twist it until it becomes what I want it to say. Something politically correct.

Yet, that is exactly what you do. You ignore the parts that do not fit your narrative. You have a goal. A self-righteous goal. Just like the Pharisees, you set yourself as the arbiter of what is right and what is wrong. That is what makes you a hypocrite. You want to set the rules, the definitions, and predict the results.

So, tell me where this is going. You are adamant that the "children of the devil" are metaphors. Metaphors for what, exactly? Something more palatable and inclusive?

When Jesus says someone's father is the devil, is that a metaphor for a child of God?

As with the snake reference, it is for emphasis. To make as weighty as possible for the audience the strength of his argument. Particularly for the Jewish people of the time, that is a big deal. Plus, as I re-read the reference, it is not at the end, as I remembered it. It is more in the middle/toward the beginning. He actually kinda backed off that accusation by the end.

When Jesus asks, "How will you escape being sentenced to Hell?" (Matt 23:33), is that a metaphor also?

Sounds more like He's asking for action. What will you DO to escape Hell?

Specifically, that the Pharisees' actions - what they have done - have created the sentence of Hell. That's where he calls them a brood of vipers. Which, after being called spawn of Satan, seems pretty tame.

[ETA:
In the (re-)re-reading, it dawned on me that, despite the Pharisees' actions, they were still capable of avoiding Hell. Otherwise, the question would be meaningless.]

Rhetorically, the inverting the question to the audience, what will they do to avoid the sentence of Hell? Follow Him.

Satan was described as specifically targeting Peter (Luke 22:31) so there is good reason to believe that the literal person of Satan was involved in Peter's rebuke to Jesus.

Do you think Satan is a metaphor?

Truly, no. In fact, in an earlier part of my career, I'm pretty sure I've been in the same room as people who actively worked for him. Maybe even while knowing it. (It was a big room.)

There's no basis to call it a process. Until they accept Christ they are dead in their trespasses, as were all Christians before spiritual rebirth. Upon hearing the gospel and believing, the Holy Spirit seals them for redemption (Eph. 1:13-14). Its a light switch, not a percentage. No one is half-saved.

Then what about the final breath thing. That thing you said.

 

[rambone]

Genesis 1-2, created in His image, Adam and Eve, stop me when this starts sounding familiar....

Negative, the phrase "Children of God" does not exist there. It is not a phrase ever used in reference to the entirety of humanity. It is not biblical.

"Different context" does not mean "opposite." Again, makes me wonder why you intentionally interpret things a certain way....

So... is it your position the magician was LITERALLY a child of the devil, or was it figurative/allegorical/metaphorical?

The devil is a literal person and he has literal followers; the magician was one of them. The magician was literally a spiritual child of the devil.

So, how does this square with your understanding of the elect? Or, is it not possible for the elect to "sin deliberately" because they are elect? In essence, because they are elect, they are bereft of the capacity to sin? And, if that is the case, what need have they of a saviour?

The elect are not sinless, but they do not follow a pattern of deliberate sin and they are repentant. Jesus continually intercedes for them (Hebrews 7:25).

How does Hebrews 10:26-31 square with your universal salvation gospel? "How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God?"

Jesus disagrees. Seriously, at this point, should we just go through it verse by verse?

You are wrong. Well, mostly wrong. Jesus did see through them, because he knew what was in their heart.

Why do you keep avoiding the issue of Jesus' command at the very beginning of his diatribe? He specifically told the crowds and his disciples to do what the Pharisees say, but to not do what they do. Why would he do that if they were literally the spawn of Satan? You think he was telling people to follow Satan?

There was not a bible on every bookshelf. The religious leaders had to read scripture to the people in public, so of course Jesus wanted them to observe the word of God, even if the mouthpieces were the spiritual children of the devil.

Citation for "every false religious system"? Common refrain? This is you setting up a straw man.

Christian salvation is fundamentally removed from any other man-made, Satan-inspired system. No other religion calls on a savior for righteousness, its always based on something the person is capable of himself. Commonly: "I'm a pretty good person... I've kept a lot of rules... I did some rituals... I haven't hurt anybody lately... I'm a good citizen... I'm nice..."

Christians are the ones saying "Dear God! I am nothing but a wretched sinner... I've broken your laws and I repent... I have nothing to add to your work of salvation... I am hopeless without your grace... I need a savior!"

Yet, that is exactly what you do. You ignore the parts that do not fit your narrative. You have a goal. A self-righteous goal. Just like the Pharisees, you set yourself as the arbiter of what is right and what is wrong. That is what makes you a hypocrite. You want to set the rules, the definitions, and predict the results.

wow...

As with the snake reference, it is for emphasis. To make as weighty as possible for the audience the strength of his argument. Particularly for the Jewish people of the time, that is a big deal. Plus, as I re-read the reference, it is not at the end, as I remembered it. It is more in the middle/toward the beginning. He actually kinda backed off that accusation by the end.

Your interpretation forces Jesus to be a slanderer. If these Pharisees ACTUALLY belonged to God, and he goes around calling them "children of the devil," that is slander. And blasphemy to God.

Jesus was not a sinner as you would have it. He was telling the exact truth, the people he referred to were NOT children of God.

Then what about the final breath thing. That thing you said.

I don't understand the question so I will just reiterate what was said. A person can be saved -- by faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ and confessing Him as Lord -- even at the final hour. The Holy Spirit is imparted upon belief (Eph. 1:13-14) and the person is sealed with a guarantee and a promise of inheritance. There is no salvation meter, ranging between 0-100%. There are no scales to weigh out all the good deeds and the bad deeds to see which is heavier. Just believe: it is not a process.

 

[T.Lex]

Negative, the phrase "Children of God" does not exist there. It is not a phrase ever used in reference to the entirety of humanity. It is not biblical.

Oh - right. You mean the Bible that means what you want it to mean. The more you talk about this, clearer it becomes that you are writing your own.

You hate what the pope stands for, so you graft your own demonized meanings onto his every word.

The devil is a literal person and he has literal followers; the magician was one of them.

I'm right there with you....

The magician was literally a spiritual child of the devil.

Until you insert your own word. Not only your own meaning, but your own word.

You can't just drop "literally" into a sentence that you've added words to, to make it credible. That's not what "literally" means.

To take that passage literally, Paul (filled with the Holy Spirit) said that the magician was the son of the devil. So, we can either take that literally, that the magician was the son of the devil, or Paul used it as an expletive. Figurative. It could certainly mean "spiritual son of the devil." But that's not literal. That's not how "literal" works. That's not how any of this works.

The elect are not sinless, but they do not follow a pattern of deliberate sin and they are repentant.

Oh wait. So, in their exercise of repentance, they accidentally sin? How is this biblical? You're creating this group of people - chosen by God - to stumble around sinning? They don't know their sinning? Or is the emphasis on "pattern"? Deliberately sinning in random ways is how the elect get things done?

How does Hebrews 10:26-31 square with your universal salvation gospel? "How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God?"

First, this is not "my" universal salvation gospel. You are the one personally taking authority for being the arbiter of biblical. This is YOUR personal salvation gospel being scrutinized with your own logic.

Second, it remains fascinating to me the things you chose to emphasize. You see division, because that is what you seek.

Finally (in this subquote), to the substance. In the leadup to your cite, we have, "Let us provoke one another to love and good deeds... encouraging one another." Hebrews 10:24-25. (There's that word again... "deeds.") Then, right after the part you cite... as in the very next verse, is the re-affirmation that God is the judge. "For we know the one who said, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.”" Judgment is not for us. We can imagine how much worse for the people who trample on the Covenant. But, that's about as far as it is supposed to go.

Yes, those people will be judged, as we all will. All of us. All children of God.

There was not a bible on every bookshelf. The religious leaders had to read scripture to the people in public, so of course Jesus wanted them to observe the word of God, even if the mouthpieces were the spiritual children of the devil.

There you go, interjecting your own words. Jesus didn't say "spiritual" children, did He? Yet, that must be what He meant, right?

Look a bit deeper. Could not Jesus have told them to reject the Pharisees?

wow...

I know, right? That's what I thought when I first read the stuff you wrote.

Yet, you accept it is true.

Your interpretation forces Jesus to be a slanderer. If these Pharisees ACTUALLY belonged to God, and he goes around calling them "children of the devil," that is slander. And blasphemy to God.

That's a stretch and a half. First, I can't force Jesus to be anything.

Second, Jesus was slandering them. (Not in the legal sense, truth is an absolute defense.) He was TOTALLY calling them out. In places, for things no one else could really know. He not only called them out, but the passage you've referred to (unless I'm mistaken), he actually calls out any converts they made as double the spawn of Satan that they are! Take THAT, Pharisees.

And how is God the Son calling exhorting a crowd in the most powerful way possible blasphemy to God the Father? That doesn't make ANY sense.

Jesus was not a sinner as you would have it. He was telling the exact truth, the people he referred to were NOT children of God.

Wait. He didn't say that at all. That's your extrapolation. He was certainly calling them hypocrites (repeatedly).

And please, can we leave the duality of Jesus as man and God for another thread?

I don't understand the question so I will just reiterate what was said. A person can be saved -- by faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ and confessing Him as Lord -- even at the final hour. The Holy Spirit is imparted upon belief (Eph. 1:13-14) and the person is sealed with a guarantee and a promise of inheritance. There is no salvation meter, ranging between 0-100%. There are no scales to weigh out all the good deeds and the bad deeds to see which is heavier. Just believe: it is not a process.

Ok, let me try an example.

A Muslim. He dies. Not a terrorist. Kinda knew about Christians but never really looked into it. By any standard, was not particularly sinful (not that it apparently matters in your calculus), at the moment of death, he has an epiphany that Christ is the Saviour and believes. In your formulation, does he make it to Heaven?

 

[rambone]

Oh - right. You mean the Bible that means what you want it to mean. The more you talk about this, clearer it becomes that you are writing your own.

31,000+ verses in the bible and apparently none of them call all of humanity "children of God." Is this really a responsible way for any Christian to speak?

That phrase doesn't arrive until John introduces us to Jesus Christ: "But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God." (John 1:12-13)

See that? "The right to become children of God" very clearly tells us that we were not children of God all along. We don't become children of God until we believe in the name of Jesus Christ.

I predict that's a big problem for some reason.

Until you insert your own word. Not only your own meaning, but your own word.

You can't just drop "literally" into a sentence that you've added words to, to make it credible. That's not what "literally" means.

To take that passage literally, Paul (filled with the Holy Spirit) said that the magician was the son of the devil. So, we can either take that literally, that the magician was the son of the devil, or Paul used it as an expletive. Figurative. It could certainly mean "spiritual son of the devil." But that's not literal. That's not how "literal" works. That's not how any of this works.

If the children of the devil are figurative, then so are the children of God. Then, none of us are children of God, because God only has one begotten Son. How's that?

These spiritual descriptions are not figures of speech, expletives, or ways to make a good point in a sermon. The spirit world exists and spiritual truths are literal. Christians are literally reborn, literally made new creations, literally washed, literally made into temples of the Holy Spirit. But all those literal events are going on outside our perception.

And just as literally, we are either children of God or children of the devil by our spiritual nature (righteousness or unrighteousness).

That's a stretch and a half. First, I can't force Jesus to be anything.

Second, Jesus was slandering them. (Not in the legal sense, truth is an absolute defense.) He was TOTALLY calling them out. In places, for things no one else could really know. He not only called them out, but the passage you've referred to (unless I'm mistaken), he actually calls out any converts they made as double the spawn of Satan that they are! Take THAT, Pharisees.

Do not associate Jesus with slander. Slander is a sin. Matt 15:19, Mark 7:22, 2Cor 12:20, Eph 4:31, Col 3:8, 1Tim 6:4, 1Pet 2:1....

Neither Paul or Jesus used "expletives" to "slander" people, they told the spiritual truth to those to whom they spoke. They were speaking to children of the devil, not God's holy ones.

And how is God the Son calling exhorting a crowd in the most powerful way possible blasphemy to God the Father? That doesn't make ANY sense.

You are adamant that EVERYONE IS A CHILD OF GOD. Then Jesus says "YOUR FATHER IS THE DEVIL." If the former were true, then the latter would be disgusting blasphemy.

Jesus doesn't speak of His brothers and sisters like that. He doesn't insult His Father like that. He doesn't lie or slander. There is no conceivable way Jesus was speaking to "children of God" like that.

Ok, let me try an example.

A Muslim. He dies. Not a terrorist. Kinda knew about Christians but never really looked into it. By any standard, was not particularly sinful (not that it apparently matters in your calculus), at the moment of death, he has an epiphany that Christ is the Saviour and believes. In your formulation, does he make it to Heaven?

Yes, he is justified by faith. That's being generous and assuming God forgives the incredible arrogance when the guy prays, "God, I'm not particularly sinful by any standard..."

And what do you say? Let's say that he was a terrorist and killed thousands of people. How many good deeds must he do to earn his way back to righteousness?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

T. Lex, Rambone, I'm enjoying your debate. I appreciate you two keeping it civil as contentious as these points are.

Regards,
GFGT

 

[PaulF]

T. Lex, Rambone, I'm enjoying your debate. I appreciate you two keeping it civil as contentious as these points are.

Regards,
GFGT

I'm right there with you on this. The discussion has been tremendous, and remained civil. This is what makes INGO different from other forums. Plus, I get to learn a thing or two...

 

[T.Lex]

I'm right there with you on this. The discussion has been tremendous, and remained civil. This is what makes INGO different from other forums. Plus, I get to learn a thing or two...

Paul,

I felt it important to address you on this before responding to rambone. From your posts, I understand that you are either agnostic or atheist. (I mean no offense, I just can't keep track of too many INGOer's views on things. My brain is full of enough trivia as it is.)

Please do not read into this discussion between me and rambone any lack of faith. Quite the opposite. I am sure of my faith and I am at least as sure of rambone's faith. This is a somewhat nuanced discussion - sometimes heated - of matters that start with faith.

To use a scientific analogy (relax rambone - an ANALOGY) this is kinda like 2 amateur physicists discussing different-but-related aspects of quantum mechanics. (Well, I'm an amateur; for all I know, rambone might have a Masters of Divinity.) We can approach things like quantum states from different perspectives, without either one of us truly understanding everything involved. It doesn't mean either of us has any doubt about our view of quantum states. We can doubt the other guy's view, but each of us believes.

I am glad you are finding the discussion useful, and perhaps even entertaining. (You, too, GFGT.) I just wanted to make sure the context of the entirety of the discussion was clear. And, I apologize if this sounds condescending - I absolutely do not mean it that way.

-T

 

[historian]

I'm just sitting here wondering how many angels dance on the head of a pin...