Will you let the bible ...

[fhansen]

So God 'helps you'? Or does he do his sovereign work in you, in which you find you must walk?

He doesn’t force His work, His grace upon me, apparently by His sovereign decree.

 

[fhansen]

Mere power and omnipotence are two different things. Omnipotence is not "a whole lot of power".

You keep trying to assess God by our measurements. It doesn't work that way.

I didn’t even hint that omnipotence was “a whole lot of power”.

 

[fhansen]

Evidently you don't understand the nature of repentance that comes with the faith that justifies. . .it's not about feeling sorrowful, it's about a mighty turning/changing of mind and life.

Sure, sure. It can be that dramatic, at least. And there can also be a mighty return to the flesh. And, yes, godly sorrow is part of that which prompts our conversion.

 

[fhansen]

Jesus was born, lived, preached and died under the Old Covenant and its Law.
When asked questions about eternal life, he answered them according to the Old Covenant and its Law.

Jesus was the very reason for the new covenant-He didn't come and do all He did just to repeat the old for us.

 

[fhansen]

We are given eternal life in the new birth, which is our "resurrection" from spiritual death into eternal life.

The sacrifice of Jesus brings forgiveness from our condemnation (Romans 5:18).

And yet, if we don't forgive others we won't be forgiven as Matt 6:15 makes clear. We're given the righteousness, the love, now, to do as God does. But we also have the continued option of not returning good for good, not loving as He has loved us.

 

[fhansen]

In order to respond, I’d have to take each individual verse and show context. That takes a lot of time, and I don’t see the value since I’d run the risk of you just posting more verses out of context as a response. So I’d be doing all the heavy lifting.

Those verses mentioned in post #80 and quoted in post #82, as examples, only compliment and support each other. The only way to get around that is to buy into the contrived theory that Jesus was still teaching the old covenant only, and that Paul was flip-flopping between the two covenants in some places, if we would only read between the lines. We also have to believe that righteousness is no longer required for salvation, even if we acknowledge that God can produce it in us and that it’s even said, in Scripture, to be a gift that comes as we turn to Him in faith.

Anyway, we have to put blinders on to fail to recognize that the new covenant is being taught in John 11:26 or John 14:1 or all of John 15 or in 17:3-and mistake that for the old covenant- or fail to find the new in Matt 5: the Sermon on the Mount, or to think He doesn’t mean it in Matt 19:17 when He tells the rich young man he must obey the commandments in order to enter life, or when Paul tells us that the doers, not the hearers of the law will be declared righteous in Rom 2:13, or that we must put to death the deeds of the flesh by the Spirit in Rom 8 in order to live, or when John tells us what righteousness is: those who do right and don’t sin. Or that Jesus didn’t mean it when He said that our righteousness must exceed that of the Pharisees and teachers of the Law in Matt 5. Or when Paul tells us in Gal 5 what kind of behavior will keep us from heaven.

Anyway, maybe none of the above applies to your understanding you but either way it’s guaranteed in Scripture that, unless we behave ourselves, with the help of grace, avoiding peristence in grave sin, we probably won’t be seeing God. Faith doesn’t guarantee righteousness even as it’s certainly the doorway to it.

 

[The Liturgist]

Have we reached a consensus yet?
Do we agree that none of us will use holy scripture as an excuse for treating others badly?
Will we refrain from cruelty, harsh words, needless condemnations of people with whom we disagree.
For example, will we refuse to say bad things about same sex attracted persons, transgendered persons, black or brown persons, Hindu or Muslim persons, native Americans, Chinese, Russians?
Will re resist the temptation to repeat propaganda in speaking ill of those who are allegedly our nations' enemies?

There is no equivalence between racism, which is evil, and was indeed condemned as a heresy by the Eastern Orthodox (to their credit, they did that in the 1890s, see “ethnophyletism), and opposition to sexual perversion and religious delusion.

Scripture itself describes “same sex attracted people” as being guilty of an abomination, and regarding Islam and Buddhism, I like how the Vulgate rendered the Septuagint version of Psalm 95:5 as “The gods of the gentiles are devils.”

It disturbs me when I see a false association made between the three categories. Criticism on the basis of race is evil, but criticism, indeed harsh criticism, of those who are technically, if in most cases, inadvertently, diabolatrous, and those who commit abominations, is just and becoming a Christian and indeed is incumbent upon us, especially on the clergy, as the light and salt of the world.

The fact that some liberal postmodern revisionists desire to remake every denomination into the semblance of Unitarian Universalism does not mean that I should be chided into acceptance of their worldly heterodoxy.

What I have said applies equally whether one adheres to Roman Catholicism, Reformed theology, or any other variety of Christianity.

 

[Hammster]

Those verses mentioned in post #80 and quoted in post #82, as examples, only compliment and support each other. The only way to get around that is to buy into the contrived theory that Jesus was still teaching the old covenant only, and that Paul was flip-flopping between the two covenants in some places, if we would only read between the lines. We also have to believe that righteousness is no longer required for salvation, even if we acknowledge that God can produce it in us and that it’s even said, in Scripture, to be a gift that comes as we turn to Him in faith.

Anyway, we have to put blinders on to fail to recognize that the new covenant is being taught in John 11:26 or John 14:1 or all of John 15 or in 17:3-and mistake that for the old covenant- or fail to find the new in Matt 5: the Sermon on the Mount, or to think He doesn’t mean it in Matt 19:17 when He tells the rich young man he must obey the commandments in order to enter life, or when Paul tells us that the doers, not the hearers of the law will be declared righteous in Rom 2:13, or that we must put to death the deeds of the flesh by the Spirit in Rom 8 in order to live, or when John tells us what righteousness is: those who do right and don’t sin. Or that Jesus didn’t mean it when He said that our righteousness must exceed that of the Pharisees and teachers of the Law in Matt 5. Or when Paul tells us in Gal 5 what kind of behavior will keep us from heaven.

Anyway, maybe none of the above applies to your understanding you but either way it’s guaranteed in Scripture that, unless we behave ourselves, with the help of grace, avoiding peristence in grave sin, we probably won’t be seeing God. Faith doesn’t guarantee righteousness even as it’s certainly the doorway to it.

You made them to support and compliment each other. Or at least assumed that they did. That’s why context is important. If one verse says what you mean, then the context will bear it out. You then can use other passages to support that. For instance, I’ve hear “God is no respecter of persons”, or “take every thought captive” for years, and rarely is context used, but whole ideas are built around these that don’t mean what was intended by the author.

 

[fhansen]

You made them to support and compliment each other. Or at least assumed that they did. That’s why context is important. If one verse says what you mean, then the context will bear it out. You then can use other passages to support that. For instance, I’ve hear “God is no respecter of persons”, or “take every thought captive” for years, and rarely is context used, but whole ideas are built around these that don’t mean what was intended by the author.

Well, that doesn't answer the question. They're all related to the common theme: that which is required to satisfy God and attain eternal life. Of course I used multiple quotes, from different places in the New testament, only for the purpose of reinforcing that position. But simply making the claim that they're out of context doesn't make it so-and comes across more as a convenient diversion than a serious answer. And I'd submit that there's a very good reason why they compliment and support each other, without my help.

 

[Hammster]

Well, that doesn't answer the question. They're all related to the common theme: that which is required to satisfy God and attain eternal life. Of course I used multiple quotes, from different places in the New testament, only for the purpose of reinforcing that position. But simply making the claim that they're out of context doesn't make it so-and comes across more as a convenient diversion than a serious answer. And I'd submit that there's a very good reason why they compliment and support each other, without my help.

If they are related, then you should be able to take one and post it in context and explain its meaning.

 

[fhansen]

If they are related, then you should be able to take one and post it in context and explain its meaning.

You should be able to explain your claim why they, in context, don't mean what they plainly state. There's simply no reason to doubt that they do- while they're all pointing to the same exact theme: eternal life. When you can reconcile those verses, you'll much better understand the gospel.

 

[Hammster]

You should be able to explain your claim why they, in context, don't mean what they plainly state. There's simply no reason to doubt that they do- while they're all pointing to the same exact theme: eternal life. When you can reconcile those verses, you'll much better understand the gospel.

Like I said earlier

So I’d be doing all the heavy lifting.

 

[fhansen]

Like I said earlier

Well, you're the one contesting their plain meaning. You don't need to respond but I'd suggest that you do that heavy lifting for yourself anyway-objectively-and you'll find they all point to the same thing IMO.

 

[Hammster]

Well, you're the one contesting their plain meaning. You don't need to respond but I'd suggest that you do that heavy lifting for yourself anyway-objectively-and you'll find they all point to the same thing IMO.

If you are satisfied with verses out of context, then okay.

 

[fhansen]

If you are satisfied with verses out of context, then okay.

Ok, so, again, an unsubstantiated claim. Next time I'll just post all of Romans or whatever letter or book I'm quoting from, and then highlight the applicable texts.

 

[Hammster]

Ok, so, again, an unsubstantiated claim. Next time I'll just post all of Romans or whatever letter or book I'm quoting from, and then highlight the applicable texts.

It’s not unsubstantiated. All I have to do is to link to your posts.

 

[fhansen]

It’s not unsubstantiated. All I have to do is to link to your posts.

Oh, do that, then. Your yoke is easy after all in that case.

 

[Hammster]

Oh, do that, then. Your yoke is easy after all in that case.

Will you let the bible ...

Lots of verses without context.

 

[concretecamper]

Will you let the bible ...

Lots of verses without context.

Yess, SS results in that more often than not.

 

[Hammster]

Yess, SS results in that more often than not.

?