Obtaining God's Forgiveness

[Gadgeteer]

Hi, Gadgeteer!

Hello, brother.

…please understand that I’m not implying that you have such understanding… yet, it is not a straw man issue since there are, at least in my part of the neighborhood, “Christians” who are working on various levels/understanding of OSAS’s theology… they do not understand “Salvation” today but “got it in my pocket” (can’t lose it no matter what, even if a person rejects God’s Commandments… just take a hold of Jesus and voilà “eternally saved”) and no way no how (even if I abuse drugs, engage in extramarital affairs, get divorced…) will I not end up in Heaven.

And that is the real reason I wrote the book (gotta complete just a couple of passages, and send the thing to the publisher!). WHAT IS SALVATION?

“I’m saved, because I believe ______”

No! It’s not what you believe or know, it is WHO you know, and Who knows you! How many Protestants, and Catholics, miss Gal2:20? Foremost I want to teach the INTIMACY between two real people, that salvation is! I want brothers and sisters from all faiths, to enter within the veil and experience the very real person(s) of God! Jesus called salvation a “marriage” – that is a union, between two real people!

If someone has only a BELIEF, then Jesus as a person is not real to him or her. I want to make it, and Jesus, real to everyone!

…some still prescribe a “saved” prayer (recite such prayer and ‘man, you are Jesus’s and you are forever saved’)–it could be that these people that I encounter are offshoots of offshoots… but they are there… teaching “salvation gained.”

You are exactly right; I call it — “incantation salvation”.

…well, while this seems quite clear cut… it is not–due to our various understanding/vocabulary we can actually abscond the meaning of the Word.

Not if we take it as a whole, and connect context, sometimes going to Greek. And even Greek commentaries are not perfect — Robertson for example is very good, and almost always right. But in Matt24:24 he gets the Greek right, but imposes a wrong bias saying “It implies it is not possible to deceive the elect”. Oh no it does not, it’s the SAME “ei-dunatos” (if possible) as in several other places (see Acts20:16, Paul hurried to be at the Pentecost IF HE COULD). Robertson is wrong, “The false seek to deceive even the elect, IF THEY CAN!”

…the above is an exact example… do you know that many are teaching such “saved” theology?

In Paul’s words (Rom10:9-10), is “confess Jesus as LORD”. Kurios, means master — fully embodying Gal2:20…

We do not need to abide in Christ… just simply own Scriptures/prayer that states that we are “saved” and we are Saved!

If one ceases having Jesus as Lord/Master, he cannot continue being saved; see how understanding of what Paul wrote makes things clear?

Never mind that Jesus explicitly states: ‘Abide in Me that I may ABIDE in you’ or ‘if you Love Me, Obey My Commandment…’

Yup; again, the efficacy of knowing more and more about Scripture. It all hasta fit together.

…all of that is passé; just stake a claim and you’re there!

Right; “just say the SINNER’S PRAYER and don’t worry about all the sinful stuff!”

Scripture, says worry…

It is the reason why I engage everyone (including Jehovah Witnesses), in an effort to dispel the errors and misunderstandings and to get at the Unity to which we are Called to by Christ!

A lady in the store just day before yesterday, refused to accept that “Jesus is JEHOVAH” — I correctly perceived she was JW. I gave her Rev21:6 and John14:4, “who gives the water-of-life, JESUS, or the ALPHA/OMEGA?” She wasn’t open to what I said (and there wasn’t enough time or an actual text)…

…yeah, throughout all my parishes’ experiences “Amen” has always been as a response to a Prayer during the liturgy; though I’ve been privy to Catholics using it in prayer/seminary groups and even some of the speakers (which I suspect are converts to Catholicism) urging: 'can I hear an “Amen?”

Heh heh! Their hearts are in the right place!

…as I said before, Christ is the God of the Amen, so “Amen!”

:hug3:

 

[Gadgeteer]

Hi, Gadgeteer!

…that understanding alone should give pause to the OSAS theologists…

…while God Remains Faithful to His Salvific Plan, man can, and does, reject it!

Why won’t they accept verses like 2Cor11:3?

Tangent
(…remember my statement about being pedestrian? I’ve never got that “blackbirds” pie thing–I remember seeing a cartoon where there are generous pastries and the character (I think it was a wolf) cuts into a pie and a bunch of blackbirds fly away–net gives me nothing… can you shed some light?)

I dunno; it’s just a nursery rhyme. I searched the net, came up with Yahoo:

"According to the Oxford Dictionary of Nursery Rhymes, an Italian cookbook from 1549 (translated into English in 1598)[5] actually contains a recipe “to make pies so that birds may be alive in them and flie out when it is cut up.” The ODNR also cites a 1723 cook who describes this as an earlier practice, the idea being that the birds cause “a diverting Hurley-Burley amongst the Guests.”
The wedding of Marie de Medici and Henri IV of France in 1600 contains some interesting parallels. “The first surprise, though, came shortly before the starter—when the guests sat down, unfolded their napkins and saw songbirds fly out. The highlight of the meal were sherbets of milk and honey, which were created by Buontalenti.”[6]

The rhyme may be a reference to pie birds, a culinary device; but it is uncertain whether these were actually well known at the time the rhyme originated. Conversely, if the rhyme came first, it may have caused the naming and common design of the pie birds

I can’t imagine anyone suggesting cruelty of cooking a live bird.

 

[Gadgeteer]

and upon this rock (petra bedrock) I will build My foundation."

Oops – “upon this rock I will build My CHURCH.” Must be sleepy.

(I don’t like the 20-minute edit limit…)

 

[James248]

Oops – “upon this rock I will build My CHURCH.” Must be sleepy.

(I don’t like the 20-minute edit limit…)

Peter got the keys doe.

 

[PJM]

There’s diversity within Catholicism. But I think there are so many Protestant churches, because people have not “hidden God’s word in their hearts”.

Ask the majority of those who call themselves “Christian” — why are you saved? And they’ll usually answer, “Because I believe _____”

If by “diversity” you mean believers in GOD’S truths and unbelievers of the same; you are correct. …in the Catholic flock of 1 BILLION plus, there are those who choose to remain at least in name in the RCC, without actually adhering to ALL of Her singular truths .

In this age of MEISM and Relativism, it’s SHOCKING, but NOT surprising.

No, Jesus came not to bring a belief! He said (Jn17:3): "Father, eternal life is knowing You

, and knowing (Me)."

The manner you state this seems to me, ambiguous:

I AM the Way, the Truth and the Life [all singular]

Mt 28:19-20 "[19] [YOU] Go [DIRECTLY. [PRECISELY AND EXCLUSIVELY] therefore and make disciples of ALL NATIONS, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, [20] teaching them to observe ALL THAT I have commanded [HERE THIS MEANS BOTH TAUGHT AND COMMANDED] YOU; and lo, I am with YOU always, to the close of the age."

You’re right; He does not.

So – how does a Reformed Theology person (for example), read Acts17:26-31 and still cling to “Sovereign Predestined Salvation”?

God makes it so that all men can seek Him and can find Him – He’s not far from anyone (per RT, He’s infinitely far from the unelect!). All men everywhere are commanded to repent, the Resurrection is proof to every person.

1Tim.2: 3 to 4 "[3] This is good, and it is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, [4] who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth".

God commits Himself to OFFER [which can be rejected] sufficient grace to every human Soul. The Entire universe exist primarily so that humanity, who alone emulates our God [Genesis 1:26-28 compared to John 4:23-24] ALONE is able to “discover God” which is a inherent need written upon every human heart. … even the most primitive and remote parts of planet earth have been found to worship a or many “gods”. is evidence of such.

God cannot abandon the Souls He Created in emulation of Himself; BUT does allow them to abandon Him; and hence deny the very reason for humanities existence. Isiah 43: verses 7 & 21

What’s unclear or negotiable about that?

In TRUTH, which can be nothing other than singular per defined issue; you ARE CORRECT. … But being correct has not stopped a GREAT MANY from dictating to GOD how He is to forgive their sins, and what He must accept as their freely chosen faith beliefs so that He {GOD] will by their command save them.

The clear, the precise, the logical fact that truth can only be singular per defined issue and that GOD in order to be GOD in an absolute sense could not, would not have and DID NOT wait until the Protestant [to protest] reformation [revolution] to make know HIS Truths. Amen

I agree; and – where two verses seem to conflict, the whole must be consulted for understanding. Have you conversed with RT’s about Eph1:4-5 and 11, Rom8:29-35 and 9:11-21? These seem to teach “Predestined Election” — but if so, they would therefore be in conflict with all the rest"

SORRY, but I don’t know who or what “RT” is?.. I would be happy to discuss the above on a separate STRING or by Private message,

There is prophecy, and there is teaching on maturity; where wording is clear and no second meaning is possible, there is no “interpretation”.

By now you know me, and you know I completely agree with that.

It is “subjective interpretation”, if a second (and more credible) meaning can be demonstrated.

That details the problem. Even WHEN the message is precisely clear; it is being subjectively reinvented: Mt 16:15-19, John 17:17-20, John 6:47-58, John 20:19-23, Mt 28:18-20 are but a few examples of this.

James 2:22 says “faith is perfected (completed) by works”. Does it not?
Romans4:2-5 says justification is not

by works — does it not?

Here a definition of the term “WORKS” has both a biblical and a different Protestant understanding.

Rom4:2 "For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.

Rom 4:3 "For what does the Scripture say? “ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.”

Rom 4:4 Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due.

Rom 4:5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,

• Does verse 2 affirm Abraham was not justified by works (else he could boast)?
• Does verse 3 affirm Abraham’s belief was credited as righteousness/justification?
• Does verse 4 teach that wages are dues for work, but salvation is by God’s favor?
• Does verse 5 teach that one who does not work, still can have faith credited as justification?

Four verses — are any of the above bulletted points answerable with “no”?

Here my friend is a good discussion of this issue:

catholicbible101.com/faithandworks.htm

GBY
Patrick

 

[PJM]

PJM, doctrines like Reformed Theology only continue because adherents dismiss verses; they read 1Cor2:14 and dismiss verse 12. They read 2Cor4:3-4 and dismiss 2Cor3:16. They read Acts13:48 and dismiss verse 46. They read Jeremiah 17:9 and dismiss verse 10. They read Rom9:15 and dismiss Rom11:32! And on and on and on!

It is easy to say “You cannot have your own private interpretation” — but unless someone can show how an understanding is any kind of “interpretation” rather than something an Apostle clearly stated, it’s the same dismissal-of-verses performed by the Reformed Theologians!

Can you disagree?

I very much like your last point, and will keep it in mind.

The reason I have not done as you suggest in the past is that THEY non-Catholic-Christians" DO know THEIR definition, BUT not what the Bible and Catholicism teaches.

GBY

 

[PJM]

The Apostles were given authority over unclean spirits.

True, BUT that is NOT A verse that I referenced

Jesus is the foundation; “You are Peter (Petros little stone), and upon this rock (petra bedrock) I will build My foundation.” Not going to argue with anyone about this, it’s one of the differences between Protestants and Catholics. See 1Cor3:11:

Strong’s Greek Lexicon Search Results

---

Result of search for “Peter”:
2786. Kephas kay-fas’ of Chaldee origin (compare 3710); the Rock; Cephas (i.e. Kepha), a surname of Peter:–Cephas.

---

1. Petros pet’-ros apparently a primary word; a (piece of) rock (larger than 3037); as a name, Petrus, an apostle:–Peter, rock. Compare 2786

Result of search for “Cephas”:
2786. Kephas kay-fas’ of Chaldee origin (compare 3710); the Rock; Cephas (i.e. Kepha), a surname of Peter:–Cephas.

www.agapebiblestudy.com: “Cephas” is the Greek transliteration of Peter’s Aramaic name “Rock” = Kepha, or perhaps in Galilean Aramaic “Qepha”. Only John among the Gospels gives this form of Peter’s name but it is also the preferred name that St. Paul uses when he writes about Peter.”

“For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.”

Not sure your intent here, “sanctify them in truth”.

Explained: Jn 17:20 "Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth.
As thou didst send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. [this is Literal] …. And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth .…

**Today’s Catholic Church & Faith is the only one who can support the fact that Christ gives HIMSELF as the Personal warranty of Her [the RCC] teaching ONLY His Truths on all faith and Moral issues.
** …[20] "I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word

“YOU!”]

Go and make disciples of all nations…

Be diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace; there is one Lord, one faith, one gospel.

We are fellow citizens with the saints.

If you’ll forgive me, can you please explain how these verses connect with James 2 (“we are justified by works and not by faith alone”), and Rom4 (we are justified by faith and not by works)?

Some years ago a USA Bishop said and was quoted for teaching: Cf. :If your understanding of the bible does not fully align with that of the RCC; it’s wrong: CHANGE IT"

The CC does not teach or believe that anyone CAN work their way into heaven; BUT nevertheless, works of charity are essential to that outcome.

And that’s why we “study to show ourselves approved”; the more we know about Scripture the more we learn how it fits together, and the better we can “both exhort in sound doctrine and refute those who contradict” (Titus1:9).

Who do YOU means by “we?” here?

They’re not studying Scripture, but rather reading treatises where others cite narrow and mis-contexted verses. Take the idea of “Pre-Trib Rapture” – some are certain Rev3:10 teaches “Because you have kept the word of My preseverance, I will KEEP YOU FROM the hour of testing” — meaning, "you will be raptured out of the world". But if one reads Jn17:15, the same “tereo-ek” means guard amidst, not “remove-you-from-the-earth” (which is “airo-ek” in Jn17:15).

See how knowing more Scripture commands accurate understanding?

And I AM all in favor of that. BUT the proof of RIGHT Understanding remains being fully aligned with the teachings of the RCC. Amen

Again, I’m going to have to impose on your patience, and ask you to help me understand what you meant. What is a “CC”?

"Catholic Church"

I thank you for the time you invested in me, and look forward to your further thoughts.

DITTO with Blessings

Patrick

 

[PJM]

No, I’m saying that most places in Scripture have only one possible understanding. Towards that, I gave several examples of verses that RT’s are certain teach “Predestined Salvation” — and by simply reading context, we establish clear meaning which does not allow the idea of “sovereign predestined salvation”. They have only one possible meaning, therefore the word “INTERPRETATION” does not apply; there is no interpretation where only one meaning is possible.

OK

Let’s take an example

John 6:47-58 is WIDELY misunderstood and yet the words used by the CATHOLIC authors, Inspired by the HS 1 Tim. 3:16-17, are exceeding clear and precise:shrug:

John.6 Verses 47 to 58

[47] Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.
[48] I am the bread of life.
[49] Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.
[50] This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die.
[51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh."
[52] The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
[53] So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;
[54] he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
[55] For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
[56] He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.

WHICH PRECISELY DESCRIBES EXACTLY WHAT DOES TAKE PLACE IN CATHOLIC HOLY COMMUNION

[57] As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.
[58] This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever." end quotes

That this was clearly understood, practiced and caused the brutal death of many believers is historically true, At FIRST the Mass was termed “BREAKING of the BREAD”

“And they were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles, and in the communication of the breaking of bread, and in prayers.”
[Acts Of Apostles 2:42]

I’m very sorry, perhaps I’m sleepy; what “number ONE”, having great significance in the New Testament’s inspired text?

(Sometimes you hafta be patient with us elders…)

YA I KNOW *

One is significant because God with PERFECT Wisdom choose it; desired it and taught it:

BELIEVE IN:

Only One God [the 1st Commandment[

One set of Faith beliefs [EVEN GOD can do nothing else… Mt 28:19-20, &

Eph.4: [1] I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called,
[2] with all lowliness and meekness, with patience, forbearing one another in love,
[3] eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
[4] There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call,
[5] one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
[6] one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all.
[7] But grace was given to each of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift.]

In and through One “Chosen People” [OT Exodus 6:7] and confirmed by Christ NT Matthew 16:18 “MY CHURCH” singular.

GBY my friend,

Patrick*

 

[jcrichton]

Hello, brother.

And that is the real reason I wrote the book (gotta complete just a couple of passages, and send the thing to the publisher!). WHAT IS SALVATION?

“I’m saved, because I believe ______”

No! It’s not what you believe or know, it is WHO you know, and Who knows you! How many Protestants, and Catholics, miss Gal2:20? Foremost I want to teach the INTIMACY between two real people, that salvation is! I want brothers and sisters from all faiths, to enter within the veil and experience the very real person(s) of God! Jesus called salvation a “marriage” – that is a union, between two real people!

If someone has only a BELIEF, then Jesus as a person is not real to him or her. I want to make it, and Jesus, real to everyone!

Hi, brother!

…it is interesting how we miss Jesus’ Call to intimacy with Him even though there are clear phases and Commands… ‘you are no longer servants/disciples, but friends’ and ‘if you Love Me’ and ‘the other Paraclete who the world cannot know/see, but you do because He will live among you and in you’ and ‘if you Love Me, the Father and I will make our abode in you…’

…then there are the biggies (at least for Catholics): Be one > Love one another > eat my flesh…

…I think that much of what takes place is under the false conception that if we are ignorant of God’s Way we have a built-in excuse for not achieving/growing in our Faith and our Christian responsibilities… (ignorance, in this case, is certainly not bliss!)

Not if we take it as a whole,

and connect context, sometimes going to Greek. And even Greek commentaries are not perfect — Robertson for example is very good, and almost always right. But in Matt24:24 he gets the Greek right, but imposes a wrong bias saying “It implies it is not possible to deceive the elect”. Oh no it does not, it’s the SAME “ei-dunatos” (if possible) as in several other places (see Acts20:16, Paul hurried to be at the Pentecost IF HE COULD). Robertson is wrong, “The false seek to deceive even the elect, IF THEY CAN!”

In Paul’s words (Rom10:9-10), is “confess Jesus as LORD”. Kurios, means master — fully embodying Gal2:20…

If one ceases having Jesus as Lord/Master, he cannot continue being saved; see how understanding of what Paul wrote makes things clear?

Yup; again, the efficacy of knowing more and more about Scripture. It all hasta fit together.
…yes, it is the reason why there are so many divisions as man continues to swell his head with “scholarly” understanding of “this” or “that” passage while ignoring the rest of Scriptures–and even the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit!

…yet, I would not stop at the efficacy of knowing Scriptures but on being doers of the Word.

I suspect that if Christendom would cease being “learned” followers of such and such and become Doers of Christ’s Word our petty egocentric dissentions would cease and we would in deed live in humble obedience to Christ’s Commandments: ‘Be one; Love one another.’

Right; “just say the SINNER’S PRAYER and don’t worry about all the sinful stuff!”

Scripture, says worry…

A lady in the store just day before yesterday, refused to accept that “Jesus is JEHOVAH” — I correctly perceived she was JW. I gave her Rev21:6 and John14:4, “who gives the water-of-life, JESUS, or the ALPHA/OMEGA?” She wasn’t open to what I said (and there wasn’t enough time or an actual text)…
…these are two cases that miss the target since they both remain in ignorance; the first, hold on to a notion that they can do nothing wrong nor need to correct anything, and the latter refuses to engage God’s Revelation in its totality.

Heh heh! Their hearts are in the right place!

Yes, in deed! …and the fervor to Follow Christ and to Praise God can never be wrong! It is a welcomed addition to the Church’s culture!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Oops – “upon this rock I will build My CHURCH.” Must be sleepy.

(I don’t like the 20-minute edit limit…)

…yeah, I think that it is nonsensical–but it could be as part of the protection to limit access to attacks by programs that may require time for unloading and creating havoc…

…now, since you seem to be on the know of the languages, did Jesus actually use the term petra or Cephas–if Cephas, (kephas) isn’t it true that there is no female term for it and that it is of Hebrew origin and was used as a name for boys?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[PJM]

…yeah, i think that it is nonsensical–but it could be as part of the protection to limit access to attacks by programs that may require time for unloading and creating havoc…

…now, since you seem to be on the know of the languages, did jesus actually use the term petra or cephas–if cephas, (kephas) isn’t it true that there is no female term for it and that it is of hebrew origin and was used as a name for boys?

Maran atha!

Angel

amen!

Gby

 

[Gadgeteer]

If by “diversity” you mean believers in GOD’S truths and unbelievers of the same; you are correct. …in the Catholic flock of 1 BILLION plus, there are those who choose to remain at least in name in the RCC, without actually adhering to ALL of Her singular truths .

I meant “differences of opinion”; someone said “Opinions are like noses, everybody has one.”

In this age of MEISM and Relativism, it’s SHOCKING, but NOT surprising.

Yes; people have “itching ears” – and love doctrine that embraces prior desires, especially sinful ones. Please see 2Tim3:1ff…

The manner you state this seems to me, ambiguous:

I AM the Way, the Truth and the Life [all singular]

Mt 28:19-20 "[19] [YOU] Go [DIRECTLY. [PRECISELY AND EXCLUSIVELY] therefore and make disciples of ALL NATIONS, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, [20] teaching them to observe ALL THAT I have commanded [HERE THIS MEANS BOTH TAUGHT AND COMMANDED] YOU; and lo, I am with YOU always, to the close of the age."

In the worlds of both Catholicism and Protestantism, too often Christianity is viewed as “driving down our roads of life, Jesus and the Father and the Spirit all neatly wrapped and packaged and lying on the seat next to us, always ready to help if ever needed.” And this misses the intimacy that is salvation; John says (1:1:3) our FELLOWSHIP is with the Father and with His Son. Paul says (Eph5:18) “be filled with the Spirit” — with the PERSON of the Spirit.

I love the bumper-sticker — “If Jesus isn’t driving, you’re in the wrong seat!” (Gal2:20!)

Do we enter within the veil and fellowship with a very real, personable God? Or do we keep Him at a distance, perceiving Him as austere and unknowable? What love is it that sends “one’s only begotten Son” to die for the objects of that love, who then never utter a syllable of fellowship and companionship in return? :bighanky:

1Tim.2: 3 to 4 "[3] This is good, and it is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, [4] who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth".

God commits Himself to OFFER [which can be rejected] sufficient grace to every human Soul. The Entire universe exist primarily so that humanity, who alone emulates our God [Genesis 1:26-28 compared to John 4:23-24] ALONE is able to “discover God” which is a inherent need written upon every human heart. … even the most primitive and remote parts of planet earth have been found to worship a or many “gods”. is evidence of such.

Why does God do that? Why permit people to accept or reject Him? Because — God is LOVE, and love cannot demand its own way. (1Cor13:5!)

For God to dictate before time who hates Him and who loves Him back, is the most fundamental violation of His nature – He is love, and each person must be free to love Him back, or it isn’t love. This has to be the most effective response to Reformed Theologians — God cannot predestine anyone either to life, or to fire!

God cannot abandon the Souls He Created in emulation of Himself; BUT does allow them to abandon Him; and hence deny the very reason for humanities existence. Isiah 43: verses 7 & 21
Everyone who is called by My name,
And whom I have created for My glory,
Whom I have formed, even whom I have made."

“The people whom I formed for Myself
Will declare My praise.”

Nicely done!

In TRUTH, which can be nothing other than singular per defined issue; you ARE CORRECT. … But being correct has not stopped a GREAT MANY from dictating to GOD how He is to forgive their sins, and what He must accept as their freely chosen faith beliefs so that He {GOD] will by their command save them.

The clear, the precise, the logical fact that truth can only be singular per defined issue and that GOD in order to be GOD in an absolute sense could not, would not have and DID NOT wait until the Protestant [to protest] reformation [revolution] to make know HIS Truths. Amen

I think at the Reformation, Catholicism had taken some “wrong turns”; things like selling indulgences, etcetera. Yet – the Reformation took some seriously wrong turns. Why would it be wrong to get back to what the Apostles and even early church fathers said?

SORRY, but I don’t know who or what “RT” is?.. I would be happy to discuss the above on a separate STRING or by Private message,

“Reformed Theologian” – one who believes that God predestines both people to be wicked (inescapably), and a few to be saved (irresistibly). Sin is absolutely escapable by His power, and salvation is absolutely resistible by our stubbornness. Goodness, God’s kindness and patience and forbearance lead us to repentance, even those who stubbornly refuse and store wrath for themselves! Those WHO by perseverance in doing good seek glory honor and immortality, they receive eternal life; but those WHO are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation. Because God IS NOT PARTIAL! (Rom2:4-11)

Why won’t RT’s acknowledge that “partiality” is what their doctrine charges God?
(Acts10:34-35 – those WHO come to God, He welcomes, He is not partial!)

 

[Gadgeteer]

That details the problem. Even WHEN the message is precisely clear; it is being subjectively reinvented: Mt 16:15-19, John 17:17-20, John 6:47-58, John 20:19-23, Mt 28:18-20 are but a few examples of this.

Here a definition of the term “WORKS” has both a biblical and a different Protestant understanding.

Rom4:2 "For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.

Rom 4:3 "For what does the Scripture say? “ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.”

Rom 4:4 Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due.

Rom 4:5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,

• Does verse 2 affirm Abraham was not justified by works (else he could boast)?

What else?

• Does verse 3 affirm Abraham’s belief was credited as righteousness/justification?

What else?

• Does verse 4 teach that wages are dues for work, but salvation is by God’s favor?

What else? (I’m beginning to sound like a broken record!)

• Does verse 5 teach that one who does not work, still can have faith credited as justification?

Yes — but — it still does not say “he does not have to exhibit good works”; as Jesus said (Matt7:14-16), “no good tree produces bad fruit (works), no bad tree produces good; you will KNOW them by their fruit!”

Four verses — are any of the above bulletted points answerable with “no”?

I gently and respectfully submit, “no they cannot be.”

Here my friend is a good discussion of this issue:

catholicbible101.com/faithandworks.htm

GBY
Patrick

Excellent citation! He says,
Catholic Bible 101:

The simple answer is that we are saved by grace (Ephesians 2:8), and not by works. However, one has to remember that it is not enough to simply say “I believe”, and then do nothing. The bible says, “Not everyone who says Lord, Lord, will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but rather he who does the will of my Father” (Matthew 7:21) Therefore, it must be assumed that works are indeed a necessary component of one’s faith.

Component of faith, even as James said, as Jesus said, and all the others.

So, you can infer from all of this that just confessing with your lips that Jesus is your personal Lord and Savior is NOT ENOUGH (deathbed conversions are a different standard), although it is a great start on your salvation journey!! The Book of James, in the Bible, says that your faith must be justified by works (James 2:24), which is much different from what Paul says in Galatians 2:16 about “We may be justified by the faith of Christ and not by the works of the law (In the former, James refers to faith being justified by works; In the latter, Paul says that we are justified by faith. So, once you have the faith and are justified by it, then your faith in turn must then be justified by works).”

And our works changes our faith; if we pursue God FIRST, then everything else shall be added unto us. (Matt6:33)

There is one cautionary note about performing good works. If our motive is for personal praise and not to build up the Kingdom of God, then Jesus says that we are already rewarded in this world and will not be rewarded in heaven (Matthew 6:1) Since the Bible warns against this, make sure that your motives are pure.

Again, if we “seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness”, then our motives will be pure. James says in ch4 “Submit therefore to God; resist the devil and he will flee. Draw near to God and He will draw near to you! Humble yourselves before God and He will exalt you!”

Our focus is not on “doing good works”, but on using what works we do to determine how close (or not!) we are to the real persons of God!

In summary, Martin Luther was wrong to change the interpretation of Holy Scripture in the sixteenth century to imply that we are saved by “faith alone”. In fact, James says that your faith must be justified by works (James 2:24), but your good works must not be motivated by selfish reasons. True faith in Jesus Christ will naturally lead you to perform good works by imitating the life of Jesus. In Ephesians 2:10, Paul says, "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works, which God has prepared that we should walk in them.” Always keep in mind the two definitions of the word “work” as used in the Bible – One meaning refers to a work of the Jewish law (does one no good), and the other definition refers to a good deed (VERY beneficial) which can make your faith come alive.

See? He’s saying the same thing(s) I’ve been saying. And it’s not separable into “Law” and “deeds” — in Rom4 Paul plainly says that wages are dues earned by works; there is no other possible understanding except that we do not do anything to earn/complete/merit/satisfy salvation, it was completely and solely finished by Jesus on the Cross, and today whosoever believes and receives His gift of grace (on His terms – “receiving” which inseparably is accompanied by good works) — is saved.

Your cited commentary agrees with every bit of that; excellent post and citation, PJM.

 

[Gadgeteer]

I very much like your last point, and will keep it in mind.

The reason I have not done as you suggest in the past is that THEY [non-Catholic-Christians" DO know THEIR definition, BUT not what the Bible and Catholicism teaches.

GBY

You and I, regardless of “Catholic/non-Catholic bent”, study Scriptures to show ourselves approved. In “exhorting with sound doctrine and refuting those who contradict”, the more Scripture we know and the more connections we discover, the more solid we are able to teach and refute divergent doctrines. Reformed Theology proclaims that “1Cor2:14 proves unregenerated-men cannot believe and be saved (the things have to be revealed first, only then can a person believe, receive the Spirit, and be saved)” — and we all know that verse 12 completely overturns that. A person has to receive the Spirit FIRST (believe-to-salvation!), only then are those things taught.

Reformed Theology proclaims that “God must monergistically and exclusively reach down to a few, and give them regeneration and new-hearts; only then can they turn to Him and they will then turn and irresistibly believe to salvation.” We all know that Deut30:11-20, with Rom10:6-10 (Rm10:6 cites Deut30:12 directly, Rm10:8 cites Deut30:14 directly) — in absolute terms states that God does NOT have to reach down from Heaven and monergistically give it to anyone, the word-of-faith is ALREADY in men’s hearts, in both hearts that can confess believe and be saved, and in hearts that can disobey turn away and perish!

Brick by brick doctrines like “Reformed Theology” can be applied with Scripture, exposing how the doctrines are un-Scriptural fabrications. When we know the verses they* use, and when we know what the verses really say (both near and far context!), then we can expose them to the single indisputable intent of the writers.

* This is true for all doctrines; if we deal with views like Jehovah’s Witness, we can cite very clear verses and show them how Watchtower has changed them; and then cite verses that Watchtower has not gotten to yet.

Whoever is our audience, let our words be couched in kindness and love, realizing that “whatever someone else believes is between them and God; we are not out to change anyone, our job is only to lead them to the only One who can change anyone.”

(…and often it is a prayer that God changes US, into whatever He needs to reach the world!)
[/quote]​

 

[Gadgeteer]

True, BUT that is NOT A verse that I referenced

Strong’s Greek Lexicon Search Results

---

Result of search for “Peter”:
2786. Kephas kay-fas’ of Chaldee origin (compare 3710); the Rock; Cephas (i.e. Kepha), a surname of Peter:–Cephas.

---

1. Petros pet’-ros apparently a primary word; a (piece of) rock (larger than 3037); as a name, Petrus, an apostle:–Peter, rock. Compare 2786

Result of search for “Cephas”:
2786. Kephas kay-fas’ of Chaldee origin (compare 3710); the Rock; Cephas (i.e. Kepha), a surname of Peter:–Cephas.

“For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.”

Not tryin’ to change anyone; only to explain where my understanding is. Compared to views such as Calvinism, my understanding is a whole lot closer to Catholicism. If I understood everything as Catholics do, I would be Catholic.

Explained: Jn 17:20 "Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth.
As thou didst send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. [this is Literal] …. And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth .…

**Today’s Catholic Church & Faith is the only one who can support the fact that Christ gives HIMSELF as the Personal warranty of Her [the RCC] teaching ONLY His Truths on all faith and Moral issues.
** …[20] "I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word

“YOU!”]

Some years ago a USA Bishop said and was quoted for teaching: Cf. :If your understanding of the bible does not fully align with that of the RCC; it’s wrong: CHANGE IT"

That might be good for someone calling himself/herself Catholic. For myself, I see no harm in considering that there are many things written by the Apostles with sufficient authority to set established points. If those points agree with certain doctrines (any doctrines, including Catholic ones), that’s fine. And if some points speak divergently from doctrines, I am open to the Apostles having written with authority. Such as my recognition of 1Cor3:1-3 labeling “Carnal Christians”, with attributes like “strife” and “jealousy”. So that when I read those two words in Gal5:19-21, also with “WILL NOT INHERIT”, my choice is whether to believe Paul’s words alluding to them not actually having salvation, or to believe a doctrine proposing “carnal/milk-eating/strife-full/jealous/SAVED”.

This is a Catholic board; it pleases me that Catholics would allow a Protestant such as myself to discuss theology. In that, I have striven to post with kindness and respect, often warning that “we are not to engage in disputes factions and dissensions”. Take what I said previous paragraph — the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops did take the “Carnal-Christians” as saved, though immature. Suppose after reading discourses here someone charges into one church or another (be it Catholic, or Protestant), with a combative attitude ("No, that’s WRONG!) That is not what we’re about. Not to change anyone, not to cause strife or trouble; but to encourage each other closer to Jesus, stronger in our faith, and that we be open to things the Apostles thought important enough to set down in print.

The CC does not teach or believe that anyone CAN work their way into heaven; BUT nevertheless, works of charity are essential to that outcome.

And the CC and I, completely agree on that.

…so does JESUS, "no good tree produces bad fruit, no bad tree produces good; you will KNOW them by their fruits!"

And that’s why we “study to show ourselves approved”; the more we know about Scripture the more we learn how it fits together, and the better we can “both exhort in sound doctrine and refute those who contradict” (Titus1:9)

. Who do YOU means by “we?” here?

We. Those who call themselves “Christian” — Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox Greek, Messianic Jews, all of us who hope to be together with Jesus as family when He returns.

Does any one of us have all of the answers, we get everything right? Paul says “now we know in part, we see in a mirror darkly; when the Perfect comes we shall know fully, even as we are fully known.”

And I AM all in favor of that. BUT the proof of RIGHT Understanding remains being fully aligned with the teachings of the RCC. Amen

As long as you and I are committed to “following Jesus on His terms”, we can fellowship in brotherly love, celebrating that we shall be real family with Jesus one day, and forever.

“Respect” means that we give each other freedom to learn our own beliefs, that we each strive for God to be real enough in us that we recognize truths, and that we never lose sight of LOVE.

"…but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ,
from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.
If I consider Catholics as “brothers and sisters in Christ”, would it be so extreme for Catholics to consider me a brother? What fun it will be when we are with Jesus in person, and will find out which of our views He affirms.

…not a single one of us will have been right in everything…

"Catholic Church"

DITTO with Blessings

Patrick

Backatchya.

 

[PJM]

What else?

What else?
What else? (I’m beginning to sound like a broken record!)
Yes — but — it still does not say “he does not have to exhibit good works”; as Jesus said (Matt7:14-16), “no good tree produces bad fruit (works), no bad tree produces good; you will KNOW them by their fruit!”

I gently and respectfully submit, “no they cannot be.”

Excellent citation! He says,
Component of faith, even as James said, as Jesus said, and all the others.

And our works changes our faith; if we pursue God FIRST, then everything else shall be added unto us. (Matt6:33)

Again, if we “seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness”, then our motives will be pure. James says in ch4 “Submit therefore to God; resist the devil and he will flee. Draw near to God and He will draw near to you! Humble yourselves before God and He will exalt you!”

Our focus is not on “doing good works”, but on using what works we do to determine how close (or not!) we are to the real persons of God!

See? He’s saying the same thing(s) I’ve been saying. And it’s not separable into “Law” and “deeds” — in Rom4 Paul plainly says that wages are dues earned by works; there is no other possible understanding except that we do not do anything to earn/complete/merit/satisfy salvation, it was completely and solely finished by Jesus on the Cross, and today whosoever believes and receives His gift of grace (on His terms – “receiving” which inseparably is accompanied by good works) — is saved.

Your cited commentary agrees with every bit of that; excellent post and citation, PJM.

My Friend you ask “WHAT ELSE”

So here is the answer:

**My friend have you ever been exposed to the One Infallible Rule for right understanding of the Bible?

Never Ever; can, may or DOES
One verse, passage or teaching have the power or authority to
Invalidate, make void or override another Verse, passage or teaching:

Were this even the slightest possibility; [it’s NOT!] it would render the entire Bible useless to teach or learn Christ Faith”**

2Peter 1: 19-21
And we have the more firm prophetical word: whereunto you do well to attend, as to a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: [20] Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. [21] For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost.

**“Whenever something is good it does not depend on us getting our way, but on God getting His way, and whether we do God’s Will depends on us [humbly] loving God. Moreover to love God we must [actually] know God, [not just know OF God].” Bread of Life booklet January 9, 2016”[Mt 7:21[/COLOR]]

2nd. Peter 3: 14-18
“Therefore, beloved, since you wait for these, be zealous to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters.** There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability. But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen**

GBY**

 

[Gadgeteer]

My Friend you ask “WHAT ELSE”

So here is the answer:

My friend have you ever been exposed to the One Infallible Rule for right understanding of the Bible?

Never Ever; can, may or DOES
One verse, passage or teaching have the power or authority to
Invalidate, make void or override another Verse, passage or teaching:

Were this even the slightest possibility; [it’s NOT!] it would render the entire Bible useless to teach or learn Christ Faith”

PJM, you are quite — correct. Yet, the issue is not “one passage invalidating/voiding/overriding another”, the issue is whether what they wrote, makes certain absolute points. Unless that can be answered “yes it does”, then no exhorting with sound doctrine or refuting those who contradict, can occur.

Please consider (again) some things I said about Reformed Theologians. For instance, they take 1Cor2:14 as "the best verse that teaches unregenerated men cannot understand salvation, or believe, or be saved; therefore regeneration must come FIRST, only then are those “misunderstood spiritual things” taught.

And we need only look two verses earlier, in order to get the very things that “natural men” cannot understand or receive, one has to RECEIVE the Holy Spirit. This leaves only two possibilities — an unturned, unrepentant, dedicated-to-sin rebel receives the Holy Spirit (completely opposite to all of Scripture!), or in plain and blatant words Paul says that belief to salvation and receiving the Spirit precedes understanding-the-things. The Reformed view is wrong, and there is no denying it.

Then I cited 2Cor4:3-4, where “the (devil) has blinded them lest they (believe and be saved)”. Therefore, Reformed Theologians decide, “they must have the veil blinding their eyes removed FIRST, only then are they able to see understand turn-to-God and be saved.” And we need only go one chapter earlier, 2Cor3:16, WHEN a man TURNS to the Lord the veil is removed. “Hēnika” — whenever, at-which-time, the Greek is clear and the writing undeniable. Reformed is wrong.

I could go on; indeed, the book I wrote addresses fifty six such verses forming the structure of “Reformed Theology”, and then all four verses forming the foundation. In no case does any verse invalidate any other; no, they all fit together, the message is consistent through Scripture.

Reformed Theologians do something similar to “no one can, may, or does have the right understanding of the Bible” — they say things like, “His ways are far above ours, it is not for us to understand.” Yes it is! We understand perfectly that God is sinless, and cannot have anything to do with sin – not in ordaining it directly, nor in ordaining it indirectly and sovereignly neglecting helpless victims to their birthed and inescapable destruction! God is righteous, perfect, and an honest judge; He cannot be hypocritical, fraudulent, or false. Attributes of God such as these we can know, and doctrines like Reformed Theology which lead otherwise we reject.

2Peter 1: 19-21
And we have the more firm prophetical word: whereunto you do well to attend, as to a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: [20] Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. [21] For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost.

Does a “prophecy-of-Scripture” speak of definite things, or is the Scripture full of fog so that no one can say for certain what the writer meant?

“Whenever something is good it does not depend on us getting our way, but on God getting His way, and whether we do God’s Will depends on us [humbly] loving God. Moreover to love God we must [actually] know God, [not just know OF God].” Bread of Life booklet January 9, 2016”[Mt 7:21[/COLOR]

A very honorable statement; as Jesus said, “Eternal life is KNOWING GOD, and knowing (Jesus)”. Jn17:3

(And then we read verses like Gal4:9 and 5:4, where some who knew God and were known BY God, can become severed from Christ and fallen from grace! OOPS for all views of osas!)

2nd. Peter 3: 14-18
“Therefore, beloved, since you wait for these, be zealous to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters.** There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability. But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen**

GBY

I know that you see we are not that far apart. Catholics do believe in the “authority of Scripture”, it’s just a matter of understanding what they wrote sufficiently to discern what they wrote, and to show the same consistency in other verses.

BTW – regarding “one verse overthrowing others”, Reformed Theology founds on four passages. Ephesians1:4-5, Ephesians1:11, Romans8:29-35, and Romans9:11-21. By themselves they make a pretty good case for “Sovereign Predestined Salvation” – but they are not by themselves, are they? The rest of Scripture does not overturn these passages, it overturns the REFORMED UNDERSTANDING of these four quotes.

 

[jcrichton]

PJM, you are quite — correct. Yet, the issue is not “one passage invalidating/voiding/overriding another”, the issue is whether what they wrote, makes certain absolute points. Unless that can be answered “yes it does”, then no exhorting with sound doctrine or refuting those who contradict, can occur.

Please consider (again) some things I said about Reformed Theologians. For instance, they take 1Cor2:14 as "the best verse that teaches unregenerated men cannot understand salvation, or believe, or be saved; therefore regeneration must come FIRST, only then are those “misunderstood spiritual things” taught.

And we need only look two verses earlier, in order to get the very things that “natural men” cannot understand or receive, one has to RECEIVE the Holy Spirit. This leaves only two possibilities — an unturned, unrepentant, dedicated-to-sin rebel receives the Holy Spirit (completely opposite to all of Scripture!), or in plain and blatant words Paul says that belief to salvation and receiving the Spirit precedes understanding-the-things. The Reformed view is wrong, and there is no denying it.

Then I cited 2Cor4:3-4, where “the (devil) has blinded them lest they (believe and be saved)”. Therefore, Reformed Theologians decide, “they must have the veil blinding their eyes removed FIRST, only then are they able to see understand turn-to-God and be saved.” And we need only go one chapter earlier, 2Cor3:16, WHEN a man TURNS to the Lord the veil is removed. “Hēnika” — whenever, at-which-time, the Greek is clear and the writing undeniable. Reformed is wrong.

I could go on; indeed, the book I wrote addresses fifty six such verses forming the structure of “Reformed Theology”, and then all four verses forming the foundation. In no case does any verse invalidate any other; no, they all fit together, the message is consistent through Scripture.

Reformed Theologians do something similar to “no one can, may, or does have the right understanding of the Bible” — they say things like, “His ways are far above ours, it is not for us to understand.” Yes it is! We understand perfectly that God is sinless, and cannot have anything to do with sin – not in ordaining it directly, nor in ordaining it indirectly and sovereignly neglecting helpless victims to their birthed and inescapable destruction! God is righteous, perfect, and an honest judge; He cannot be hypocritical, fraudulent, or false. Attributes of God such as these we can know, and doctrines like Reformed Theology which lead otherwise we reject.

Does a “prophecy-of-Scripture” speak of definite things, or is the Scripture full of fog so that no one can say for certain what the writer meant?

A very honorable statement; as Jesus said, “Eternal life is KNOWING GOD, and knowing (Jesus)”. Jn17:3

(And then we read verses like Gal4:9 and 5:4, where some who knew God and were known BY God, can become severed from Christ and fallen from grace! OOPS for all views of osas!)

I know that you see we are not that far apart. Catholics do believe in the “authority of Scripture”, it’s just a matter of understanding what they wrote sufficiently to discern what they wrote, and to show the same consistency in other verses.

BTW – regarding “one verse overthrowing others”, Reformed Theology founds on four passages. Ephesians1:4-5, Ephesians1:11, Romans8:29-35, and Romans9:11-21. By themselves they make a pretty good case for “Sovereign Predestined Salvation” – but they are not by themselves, are they? The rest of Scripture does not overturn these passages, it overturns the REFORMED UNDERSTANDING of these four quotes.

Hi, Gadgeteer!

Excellent point!

Scriptures do not nullify Scriptures; yet, Scriptures can be used to nullify erroneous interpretations of the Word of God!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Gadgeteer]

Hi, Gadgeteer!

Excellent point!

Scriptures do not nullify Scriptures; yet, Scriptures can be used to nullify erroneous interpretations of the Word of God!

That’s it. You and I (and most Catholics and most Protestants), agree on the authority of Scripture. That very statement demands that Scripture does teach some absolutes, certain ideas which exist with only one meaning, therefore there is no “interpretation”.

Without this reality, there can be no discussion of Scriptures, no “exhorting with sound doctrine and refuting those who contradict”. So when a passage seems to say one thing, but that perception is found opposite to another passage or two, we have to uncover why there seems to be a discrepancy.

An excellent example of this is Isaiah6:10, and John12:40. Reading only these verses, one would think that God closes their eyes and ears and shuts off salvation from men! RT’s are certain this teaches “Sovereign Predestined Salvation”!

But then we read Jesus’ words in Matt13:15-16, and citing Isaiah6:10 He plainly says that men close their OWN eyes and ears against salvation!

How do we resolve this apparent contradiction? We realize there is a literary device, ascribing to God (or the devil, etcetera) what men do themselves! See Ex10:1 “God hardened Pharaoh’s heart”, and two verses earlier Ex9:34 Pharaoh hardened his OWN heart.

Everyone prove to yourselves that Pharaoh hardened his own heart, 1Sam6:6.

Because we understand a real First Century literary device, “Semitic View” (or “Anthropomorphism”), there is no contradiction between “God-closes-eyes/ears”, and “they-close-their-OWN-eyes-and-ears”. In fact, all those verses really intend the same thing, men close their own eyes and ears. And therefore we connect perfectly with the verses that say “Take care how you LISTEN” (open your ears!)

And connects with “faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God”. In context (Rom10:14-17), in no way could preacher-availability affect who becomes saved — unless listening/hearing affects who becomes saved. Zero of “Predestined Salvation”.

“How shall they believe in whom they have not heard, how shall they hear without a preacher?” Rm10:14

(BTW, Semitic View also explains verses like 2Cor4:3-4, Rom12:3, and many others!)

 

[jcrichton]

That’s it. You and I (and most Catholics and most Protestants), agree on the authority of Scripture. That very statement demands that Scripture does teach some absolutes, certain ideas which exist with only one meaning, therefore there is no “interpretation”.

Without this reality, there can be no discussion of Scriptures, no “exhorting with sound doctrine and refuting those who contradict”. So when a passage seems to say one thing, but that perception is found opposite to another passage or two, we have to uncover why there seems to be a discrepancy.

An excellent example of this is Isaiah6:10, and John12:40. Reading only these verses, one would think that God closes their eyes and ears and shuts off salvation from men! RT’s are certain this teaches “Sovereign Predestined Salvation”!

But then we read Jesus’ words in Matt13:15-16, and citing Isaiah6:10 He plainly says that men close their OWN eyes and ears against salvation!

How do we resolve this apparent contradiction? We realize there is a literary device, ascribing to God (or the devil, etcetera) what men do themselves! See Ex10:1 “God hardened Pharaoh’s heart”, and two verses earlier Ex9:34 Pharaoh hardened his OWN heart.

Everyone prove to yourselves that Pharaoh hardened his own heart, 1Sam6:6.

Because we understand a real First Century literary device, “Semitic View” (or “Anthropomorphism”), there is no contradiction between “God-closes-eyes/ears”, and “they-close-their-OWN-eyes-and-ears”. In fact, all those verses really intend the same thing, men close their own eyes and ears. And therefore we connect perfectly with the verses that say “Take care how you LISTEN” (open your ears!)

And connects with “faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God”. In context (Rom10:14-17), in no way could preacher-availability affect who becomes saved — unless listening/hearing affects who becomes saved. Zero of “Predestined Salvation”.

“How shall they believe in whom they have not heard, how shall they hear without a preacher?” Rm10:14

(BTW, Semitic View also explains verses like 2Cor4:3-4, Rom12:3, and many others!)

Hi, Gadgeteer!

I think that what is missing in their understanding is that in deed God has allowed them (Israel) to shut their eyes and close their ears so that the Gentiles can be afforded the opportunity of Salvation:

12 Isaiah too has this to say: The root of Jesse will appear, rising up to rule the pagans and in him the pagans will put their hope.

(Romans 15:12)
It is in this relationship that God allows Israel to fail so that all may share in on God’s Mercy, in His Salvific Plan (St. John 1:10-12; 3:16; Romans 9 thru 11–specifically: 11:25-32).

Maran atha!

Angel