What are the main differences between Traditional and Progressive?

[sentipente]

The confusion comes from refusing to accept how humans came to be lost. Christian belief on this matter contradicts reality. The impression is that humans either rebelled against their Creator, or that humans were discovered by the Creator, both of which the available information denies.

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

The confusion comes from refusing to accept how humans came to be lost. Christian belief on this matter contradicts reality. The impression is that humans either rebelled against their Creator, or that humans were discovered by the Creator, both of which the available information denies.

The story of the fall in Genesis 3 suggests humans being tempted into doing something Creator explicitly instructed them not to do. The result of doing so broke their ability to trust Creator somehow and led to fearing Him and hiding from Him instead. However the Bible also indicates that Jesus bes the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, which could be understood as hinting that God knew all about it ahead of time and made a plan for it, and in consideration of such, our alienation from Him has been entirely in our own minds and hearts, never actually coming from Himself.

In what way, Senti, do you believe Christian belief contradicts the truth/reality of the lost condition of humanity? Could you be more specific?

Does anyone else ever, as a mental exercise, wonder or ponder about how an anthropologist from another planet light-years away would regard the sum history of human civilization with all its wars, conflicts, myths, beliefs, stories, efforts, technologies, rise and fall of nations, etc.? Wow.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

I have already given you 2 articles which show that the subject is salvation not faith.

Again, if I wanted to read articles, I'd buy a magazine. I came to a discussion forum for discussion. If you'd like to enter into discussion, please explain why YOU believe a pronoun can replace any noun in a sentence. Rules of language suggest that pronouns replace the noun that immediately precedes the pronoun. Thus faith is a gift of God.

The author and finisher is God who grants salvation by His grace.

As the author, He is the creator of your faith. As the finisher, He brings your faith to completion. The focus is on God, not you.

To accept the grace of God is an act of faith in the person of God and His word and ability to do what He says.

If it weren't for God, would any of this even be possible?

Your own lack of discernment is frightening. That there are people in our Christian churches with such nonsensical ideas is a tragedy.

I will leave you to your judgments. In the meantime, I have my own concerns. I am quite troubled that there are Christians who believe they can take credit for that which was given to them as a free gift.

You consistently misuse the Bible such as the way you used the author and finisher above.

No misuse. God is the author and the finisher of my faith. That is a Scriptural fact.

Read the context and you would see that our faith is developed by looking at what Christ has done.

If this is true, why do you conclude that it has anything to do with you?

In other words it is possible to reject the gift God offers.

If that possibility exists, doesn't even that possibility come from God? Or do you conclude that man is more sovereign than God?

As with any gift if it is not accepted it does not good, if it is forced to be accepted it is not a gift.

Human theory, not Scriptural fact.

Yes you said a person could not even choose to exercise unless God caused them to.

Let's discuss what I actually said. What I said is that, without God, there would be none of the resources required to even be able to exercise. How can I take credit for exercising when my desire, strength and ability to exercise would not even exist without God?

Now you may have been carried away by rhetoric as is often the case of those who don't think about what they believe but you have to deal with what you said and I have already observed that you consistently misuse context and confuse statements.

Again, you are welcome to make judgments. I'm not here to defend myself but rather the gospel of Jesus Christ. If there is confusion about my position, it is likely because you keep trying to place me into a category that makes sense to you rather than reading for the purpose of gaining an understanding of my position (whether or not you agree with it). My position hasn't changed.

I would still like to know which of the Calvinist Tulip points you disagree with since you said you were not Calvinistic or is that another thing you now want to disown.

Not at all. I am not a Calvinist. However, I'm also not an Arminian. My position falls somewhere in between the two. Please re-read my last post. I addressed specifically which Tulip points I embrace and which I do not.

BFA

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

This is what you said about my question of tulip:

I agree with the concept of depravity. I am not in agreement with the other tulip points.

So you disagree with the idea of irresistible grace? Then what are you arguing, you must agree with free will then.

I posted the sections of the articles that deal with you pronoun issue. You did not even have go somewhere else to read them. You make statements like:

Human theory, not Scriptural fact.

Such statements only reveal that you think your position is scriptural fact and anything against your position is human theory. Yet you refuse to even look at the scriptural evidence the disputes what you claim is scriptural fact. You have consistently ignored context in the Bible and in the posts written here.

It does not leave me thinking you have any real reason for believing what you believe. Of course to you belief is merely something that God gives you so I understand that because you misinterpret common English words you will certainly misinterpret what you have believed to be fact when it is nothing near fact.

I suppose it comes down to the difference in what you think belief is and what I think belief is. I hold to belief in accordance with the American Heritage dictionary's definition:

1. <LI minmax_bound="true">The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.
2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.

You apparently hold that the mental assent is not part of the person. I vehemently disagree. You seem to hold though you have not defined faith or belief and are not using the dictionary meaning that faith is something that God inserts into the person without mental assent of the person. So the Christian is the puppet of God as is the non-Christian who is condemned to total depravity unless God should insert faith upon that person. Not what I would call good news.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Well you won't if you keep changing the goals posts - I mentioned freewill not gift of grace - these are two different words last time I spoke English.

I certainly haven't changed my question. Perhaps your understanding of my question has changed. I've always wanted to know whether in Scripture we can find evidence of man choosing the gift of grace. Now that you understand the question I have been consistently asking, do you have an answer? No one else has been able to provide one; perhaps you can . . . .

BFA

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

I certainly haven't changed my question. Perhaps your understanding of my question has changed. I've always wanted to know whether in Scripture we can find evidence of man choosing the gift of grace. Now that you understand the question I have been consistently asking, do you have an answer? No one else has been able to provide one; perhaps you can . . . .

BFA

Here was your question:

Can you show me in Scripture where this concept of "free will" was given?
http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=46923417&postcount=101

When you were given examples in the Bible you changed the question and now you deny that you changed. Typical and sad.

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

As with any gift if it is not accepted it does not good, if it is forced to be accepted it is not a gift.

Your parents, with God acting through them, gave you the gift of life. You did not "accept" it; you had no choice in the matter.
No one asked you whether you wanted to exist. You bes not even in on the consultation.
Nevertheless, it bes a gift anyway, because without it, there would be no you.
Did you have to accept this gift to make it real and yours? Nope, you bes stuck with it, likesy or not.
By your definition above, as you did not accept it, it does no good.
So would you then say having existence does you no good?

Now, the scripture says to see and enter the Kingdom of God we must be born again.
John 3:3-8:
3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

It does not say we must CHOOSE to be born again. It does not say we must CHOOSE to accept grace or God's gift. It says we must be born again.
We had nothing to do with being born in the first place, did we? Except that it happened TO us, whether we willed or no, without our consent.
Nicodemus -- well-educated, well-trained, well-learned in doctrine and scripture, and sufficiently graced of God to recognize the true origin of Jesus' power to work miracles -- clearly did not regard this as a simple matter of "just choose for it to happen" or he would not have asked in verse 9, astonished,
9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?

And what says the scriptures of those whats been born again?
John 1:12-13:

12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Scripture makes it abundantly plain and clear in this latter verse that those born again, born from above, born of the spirit, do not become so through/by the WILL (choice) of the flesh, NOR the WILL (choice) of man, but rather the WILL of GOD.
This bes an exact specific word so stating. Will you ignore it or explain it away now?

The glory of God lays the pride of man in the dust utterly. Mortal you cannot do a single thing to contribute to your salvation, to earn it, to merit it. You bes cast helpless upon the mercy of the Almighty like the rest of us and He does not regard you as any higher than those you judge to be "beneath" you because they will not capitulate to your error in this regard. Nor do you control the Sovereign of the Universe by the dint of your puny "will". You will tremble before His might and majesty like the rest of us do -- sometimes in awe, sometimes honestly in fear, oftentimes in joy as we receive of HIS bountiful goodness, and oftentimes with tears realising how deeply and profoundly undeserving we bes. But before His throne all arrogant assertions that one can take any credit for any part in one's salvation will cease, and even in the afterlife our "crowns" will be cast at the feet of the Deliverer* unto Whom bes due ALL glory and honor and praise.


__________________________________________________________________
* Moriah calls Him so even before He delivers it. What says that to you?

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Here was your question:

Did you read the context of the entire post, or the many times that I've clarified my question? When you do, you won't miss my consistency. I'm sorry if you misunderstood my question.

When you were given examples in the Bible you changed the question and now you deny that you changed.

Nope. Never changed the question. May have clarified it further, but never changed it.

Typical and sad.

Are such comments productive? BTW, I haven't been able to get to your longer post, but will do so when I have the time. In the meantime, would you like to answer my question:

Q: Where in Scripture do we find evidence of man choosing the gift of grace?

BFA

 

[sentipente]

Some seem to be confusing an offer with a gift. I wonder why we want to add so much difficulty to the work of the Creator?

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Did you read the context of the entire post, or the many times that I've clarified my question? When you do, you won't miss my consistency. I'm sorry if you misunderstood my question.



Nope. Never changed the question. May have clarified it further, but never changed it.



Are such comments productive? BTW, I haven't been able to get to your longer post, but will do so when I have the time. In the meantime, would you like to answer my question:

Q: Where in Scripture do we find evidence of man choosing the gift of grace?

BFA

Here is your whole post. I took nothing out of context. there is nothing there in the post about the context which you keep inserting about choosing to the gift of grace.

Do you have free will, yes or no.
​

I don't find the phrase "free will" in Scripture. However, I do find the words "believe" and "faith" and I note that these are gifts of God.

Can you change your behavior
​

I can do nothing. My righteousness is as filthy rags.

say can you choose to exercise 3 days a week when previously you did not exercise?
​

I have no innate desire to take care of my body. If I have the strength, desire and means to exercise, all were gifts of God. I can take no credit for "choosing to exercise."

Can you choose to, for example stop telling your neighbor that another neighbor is a a stupid jerk?
​

When left to my own devises, I will probably tell my neighbor what I think about another neighbor. If I refrain from such behavior, you can be sure it is due to the One who is living within me.

By the way when did we lose free will?
​

Can you show me in Scripture where this concept of "free will" was given?

BFA

Now you hopefully see what is typical and sad. When people can't even understand what they have said and accuse others of being false when it is themselves who are deceptive. When someone begins with a presupposition which is not based upon anything anyone on the thread has said then it is just sad.

I don't even know of Arminus or Pelagius saying that man chooses God's grace. Accepts the gift of grace certainly but not chooses grace. Because the simply fact is the Grace of God is from God, man can't choose to make God graceful or ungraceful.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

RC_NewProtestants,

I'm a bit tired of the evasion. Here are 2 direct questions:

(1) Does man choose to accept or receive God's gift of grace?

(2) Where in Scripture does it teach that man chooses to accept or receive God's gift of grace?
​

I've already presented what Pelagius taught on this subject. Now I want YOUR position. Whether or not you believe these are valid questions, they are indeed my questions and I'd appreciate a direct answer that doesn't include any further evasion.

Thanks,
BFA

 

[Adventtruth]

Accepts the gift of grace certainly but not chooses grace. Because the simply fact is the Grace of God is from God, man can't choose to make God graceful or ungraceful.

RC...can you kindly clarify this last quote please? I want to understand what you are driving at before I respond.

AT

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

Typical and sad.

Are such comments productive?

Seriously, can we please have a moratorium against vacuous button pushing for its own sake? Sick of that crap; it only wrecks things.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

RC_NewProtestants,

I'm a bit tired of the evasion. Here are 2 direct questions:

(1) Does man choose to accept or receive God's gift of grace?

(2) Where in Scripture does it teach that man chooses to accept or receive God's gift of grace?
​

I've already presented what Pelagius taught on this subject. Now I want YOUR position. Whether or not you believe these are valid questions, they are indeed my questions and I'd appreciate a direct answer that doesn't include any further evasion.

Thanks,
BFA

That is rich as if I have been the one evading. I will answer you pathetic attempt to try and make it seem as if I am the one the dishonest one. But you do wear my patience.

(1) Does man choose to accept or receive God's gift of grace?

Once again you state you questions poorly probably so that you can try and weasel out of them again. Man does not as a corporate entity accept or receive God's gift of grace. It is an individual acceptance. A more proper question would be: can a man choose to accept or receive God's gift of grace? To that the answer is yes. In fact the first sermon preached after the resurrection indicate exactly that. Peter gives a sermon that takes the listeners through the life death and resurrection of Christ and a large amount of those who heard the story believed.

[SIZE=+0]Acts 4:4 [/SIZE][SIZE=+0]But many of those who had heard the message [SIZE=+1]believed[/SIZE]; and the number of the men came to be about five thousand[/SIZE]

(2) Where in Scripture does it teach that man chooses to accept or receive God's gift of grace?
As the above illustrates pretty much any of the verses that talk about believing in the Bible indicate that the person is chooses to accept or receive God's gift of grace. Because that is what believing in God is about. Realizing that God is not your enemy, that God loves the person and that God will bring salvation to the person.

As I said before your problem is that you don't hold to any normal understanding of the words believe, faith or trust. You see them as gifts giving rather then mental acceptance of ideas.

Romans 10:8 But what does it say? "THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, in your mouth and in your heart"--that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, 9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. 11 For the Scripture says, "WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED." 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; 13 for "WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED." 14 How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? 15 How will they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, "HOW BEAUTIFUL ARE THE FEET OF THOSE WHO BRING GOOD NEWS OF GOOD THINGS !"

 

[Adventtruth]

That is rich as if I have been the one evading. I will answer you pathetic attempt to try and make it seem as if I am the one the dishonest one. But you do wear my patience.

(1) Does man choose to accept or receive God's gift of grace?

Once again you state you questions poorly probably so that you can try and weasel out of them again. Man does not as a corporate entity accept or receive God's gift of grace. It is an individual acceptance. A more proper question would be: can a man choose to accept or receive God's gift of grace? To that the answer is yes. In fact the first sermon preached after the resurrection indicate exactly that. Peter gives a sermon that takes the listeners through the life death and resurrection of Christ and a large amount of those who heard the story believed.



(2) Where in Scripture does it teach that man chooses to accept or receive God's gift of grace?
As the above illustrates pretty much any of the verses that talk about believing in the Bible indicate that the person is chooses to accept or receive God's gift of grace. Because that is what believing in God is about. Realizing that God is not your enemy, that God loves the person and that God will bring salvation to the person.

As I said before your problem is that you don't hold to any normal understanding of the words believe, faith or trust. You see them as gifts giving rather then mental acceptance of ideas.

So whats the difference? Are you teaching that faith and belief are not gifts that are presented to us? IF they are mere "mental acceptance of ideas" as you say, then would that suggest that they where presented to us to accept?



AT

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

So whats the difference? Are you teaching that faith and belief are not gifts that are presented to us? IF they are mere "mental acceptance of ideas" as you say, then would that suggest that they where presented to us to accept?



AT

Well if I can figure out what you are asking maybe I could tell you what the difference is. I am saying that belief is based upon mental acceptance of the evidence that God has provided. If someone does not accept that evidence then they don't believe. So to your question "Are you teaching that faith and belief are not gifts that are presented to us? " No belief is not a gift God gives to us. There would be no reason to even preach the gospel if mental acceptance of the evidence is not needed. Because then the only thing that brings a person to salvation is God giving them belief with belief not really a good term because that word contains in it's meaning mental acceptance of an idea. In which case it matters not at all what any person thinks. They will either be saved by God because He gives them belief in God or they will not be saved because God refuses to give them belief. No reason to as the quote from Romans says, bless the feet of those bringing the good news because the good news is not really good news to anyone. The good news would become God chooses to save by fiat and if you aren't lucky enough to get chosen then there is definitely no good news in the gospel.

Calvinists try to get around this by saying "well God knows who will respond and who will not." So instead of God actually letting people respond they bypass actual decisions and go right to deciding what they would do if they could respond but are prevented from responding by God. A symptom of the irrational view of God. But of course to them it does not matter if God is irrational because they think they believe and thus have received the gift that gives them salvation. They don't care what the witness of their view of God shows thinking people because God has no use for thinking people. It produces an horrible gospel and a horrible God when tied to their insistence upon Penal atonement theory they have pretty much nothing to offer anybody except a black eye to Christianity.

 

[Adventtruth]

Well if I can figure out what you are asking maybe I could tell you what the difference is. I am saying that belief is based upon mental acceptance of the evidence that God has provided. If someone does not accept that evidence then they don't believe. So to your question "Are you teaching that faith and belief are not gifts that are presented to us? " No belief is not a gift God gives to us. There would be no reason to even preach the gospel if mental acceptance of the evidence is not needed. Because then the only thing that brings a person to salvation is God giving them belief with belief not really a good term because that word contains in it's meaning mental acceptance of an idea. In which case it matters not at all what any person thinks. They will either be saved by God because He gives them belief in God or they will not be saved because God refuses to give them belief. No reason to as the quote from Romans says, bless the feet of those bringing the good news because the good news is not really good news to anyone. The good news would become God chooses to save by fiat and if you aren't lucky enough to get chosen then there is definitely no good news in the gospel.

Calvinists try to get around this by saying "well God knows who will respond and who will not." So instead of God actually letting people respond they bypass actual decisions and go right to deciding what they would do if they could respond but are prevented from responding by God. A symptom of the irrational view of God. But of course to them it does not matter if God is irrational because they think they believe and thus have received the gift that gives them salvation. They don't care what the witness of their view of God shows thinking people because God has no use for thinking people. It produces an horrible gospel and a horrible God when tied to their insistence upon Penal atonement theory they have pretty much nothing to offer anybody except a black eye to Christianity.

RC... Well I see you understood me perfectly seeing that you answered just fine.

Just as the bible says, Christ enlightens all with knowledge and belief to recieve Him. But some do choose to not believe for whatever reason. Now it is possible that we are all given the gift at different times in our lives, but for whatever reason, some do not respond to the mercies of God. Now you may say that God did not gift them with the ability to believe or you may say they rejected it, but never the less its a gift that we recieve or not. I have to disagree with you here.


(Joh 1:6) There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
(Joh 1:7) He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him.
(Joh 1:8) He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light.
(Joh 1:9) The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world.
(Joh 1:10) He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him.
(Joh 1:11) He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him.
(Joh 1:12) But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God,


AT

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

RC... Well I see you understood me perfectly seeing that you answered just fine.

Just as the bible says, Christ enlightens all with knowledge and belief to recieve Him. But some do choose to not believe for whatever reason. Now it is possible that we are all given the gift at different times in our lives, but for whatever reason, some do not respond to the mercies of God. Now you may say that God did not gift them with the ability to believe or you may say they rejected it, but never the less its a gift that we recieve or not. I have to disagree with you here.

Some choose to receive and one of the main reasons for receiving is that they choose to believe the evidence. some choose to not believe because they refuse the evidence. It is the "whatever reason" that is the sticking point if the "whatever reason" is that God simply did not give them belief or faith then the reason is that God and not man made the decision that they should not receive Him. You then say that some do not respond to the mercies of God. That is another way of saying man has free will, he can reject or accept God's gifts or God's evidence. So you have stated one thing and reversed it to state the opposite in your final sentence above.

The verse from John is a generalization. We know from history that Jesus did change the world we can certainly say that because of Jesus the world through Christianity has been enlightened. But has all the world been enlightened, well no even today there are places with no knowledge of Jesus Christ. The generalization continues that He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him.
true as a generalization yet we know that many did receive Him and the first Christians were Jews. A generalization taken to be literal truth is a form of fallacy.

 

[Adventtruth]

Some choose to receive and one of the main reasons for receiving is that they choose to believe the evidence. some choose to not believe because they refuse the evidence.

Its not a matter of evidence...its a matter of faith in the impossiblity. Those who do recieve believe on faith alone. Read Hebrews 11.

It is the "whatever reason" that is the sticking point if the "whatever reason" is that God simply did not give them belief or faith then the reason is that God and not man made the decision that they should not receive Him.

I don't profess to know how salvation works RC. All I know is that God enlightens all men...human beings when they come into the world. But the bible clearly teaches that some stumble at Christ and that they where destined to do so. Your argument is with the world of God.

(1Pe 2:6) For it stands in Scripture: "Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame."
(1Pe 2:7) So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe, "The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,"
(1Pe 2:8) and "A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense." They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.

You then say that some do not respond to the mercies of God. That is another way of saying man has free will, he can reject or accept God's gifts or God's evidence. So you have stated one thing and reversed it to state the opposite in your final sentence above.

No...thats not what I am driving at. Men don't have free wills....Men have wills that have been made free. There is a difference. John 1:9 tells us that God enlightens all men who come into the world. We don't know when this happens but when it happens, the individual has then had a will that has been made free to either recieve or reject Christ. But before that point they can only choose a life of sin.

(Eph 2:1) And you were dead in the trespasses and sins
(Eph 2:2) in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience--
(Eph 2:3) among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.
(Eph 2:4) But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us,
(Eph 2:5) even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ--by grace you have been saved--
(Eph 2:6) and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,
(Eph 2:7) so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.
(Eph 2:8) For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,
(Eph 2:9) not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
(Eph 2:10) For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
(Eph 2:11) Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called "the uncircumcision" by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands--
(Eph 2:12) remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.
(Eph 2:13) But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

The verse from John is a generalization. We know from history that Jesus did change the world we can certainly say that because of Jesus the world through Christianity has been enlightened. But has all the world been enlightened, well no even today there are places with no knowledge of Jesus Christ. The generalization continues that He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him.
true as a generalization yet we know that many did receive Him and the first Christians were Jews. A generalization taken to be literal truth is a form of fallacy.

Now you are reading into scripture, and not takig it as it reads. There is nothing in that context that suggest this is a generalation, but there is much proof that this is a literal context when one understands that the light is Christ.

(Joh 1:1)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Literal

(Joh 1:2)

He was in the beginning with God.

Literal

(Joh 1:3)

All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Literal

(Joh 1:4)

In him was life, and the life was the light of men.

Literal

(Joh 1:5)

The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

Literal

(Joh 1:6)

There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

Literal

(Joh 1:7)

He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him.

Literal

(Joh 1:8)

He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light.

Literal

(Joh 1:9)

The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world.

Literal

(Joh 1:10)

He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him.

Literal

(Joh 1:11)

He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him.

Literal

(Joh 1:12)

But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God,

Lieral


AT

 

[Pythons]

We have the same question when i got here, but after reading some post made in both subfuroms i find out that this two have different views.

MY QUESTIONS NOW IS:

HOW CAN THEY USE SDA IN PROGRESSIVE? They dont believe in all 28 beliefs. And as far as i know 28 beliefs is SDA doctrine. So if anyone who dont believe or fully believe this doctrines should not call themselves SDA. Im sorry if i offend someone. Because for me this like a Catholic forum but having a subforum who dont believe Mary or St. francis or st peter.

This is confusing.

This certainly has caused me to scratch my head as well, especially when one considers that SDA's who identify themselves as Traditional reject Fundamental belief? It's a tough one isn't it.