Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Site Notices
Page / 13
Link Posted: 5/10/2021 4:46:42 PM EDT
[#1]
Who knows the answer, or rather who wants to commit a mortal sin (are there immortal sins? Either one will work for me) and somehow communicate back to us what happens.
If I had to guess, I'm sure I'm going to die with some kind of sin. I just don't know how I'm going to let y'all know how it turned out.
Link Posted: 5/10/2021 4:47:45 PM EDT
[#2]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
There's a circular definition in modern theological lexicons that turns Jonah 3:10 into a contradictory mess. Websites also like routinely change their definition to include 2000 years of theological context even though the meaning of the word itself hasn't changed in that time from "a change of mind".

You probably won't read it, but: http://www.timothyministry.com/2012/07/the-great-meaning-of-metanoia.html?m=1
View Quote


I'm VERY familiar with Timothy Ministry. I have looked over a lot of their information. It is standard OSAS stuff.

I'll read this particular article when I have a bit more time.
Link Posted: 5/10/2021 4:50:53 PM EDT
[#3]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
What is Christ's death on the Cross if it's not substitutionary atonement? =
View Quote


So then the answer is "yes" regarding my question of:

"Since you believe that everyday sins and mortal sins are equal in God's eyes, are you saying that if one was saved but was still to commit any sin, from lust and greed to rape and murder, without repenting or atoning for them prior to death, then they could still reach salvation?"

And the answer is "yes" because "Christ's death on the Cross" is "substitutionary atonement"?

Do I have this correct?

If so, why was that so hard to do, to just say "yes". There is no gotcha here. I just want to establish a baseline.
Link Posted: 5/10/2021 5:52:00 PM EDT
[#4]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
That's not what I said exactly, but at least you admit you've been misrepresenting me this entire time about answering at all.

I basically said that when we believe, God credits us with righteousness, not sin, and we have the Holy Spirit as a guarantee of our future redemption.

5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, 6 just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works: 7 "Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, And whose sins are covered; 8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord shall not impute sin."

It's about God honoring His promise regarding His free gift.

View Quote


Would you link to the post where I "misrepresented you about answering at all"?

If you offer kid has a choice between fried chicken and a cheeseburger for dinner and the kid chooses fried chicken, but you say "no, I promised you a cheeseburger so that is what you will have" your kid does not have free will to choose.

Link Posted: 5/10/2021 5:59:27 PM EDT
[#5]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Would you link to the post where I "misrepresented you about answering at all"?

If you offer kid has a choice between fried chicken and a cheeseburger for dinner and the kid chooses fried chicken, but you say "no, I promised you a cheeseburger so that is what you will have" your kid does not have free will to choose.

View Quote
Then according to your logic Jesus wasn't telling the whole truth when He said "believe in me and you have been saved" since we still have to cross that finish line that no one knows they will.


Link Posted: 5/10/2021 6:05:02 PM EDT
[#6]
You know here Jesus talks about those who call Him Lord, speak of their wonderful works, and didn't get into the Kingdom:

21 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' 23 And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'

Now find me a man of faith in the Bible who lost the Holy Spirit and went to hell.
Link Posted: 5/10/2021 6:05:40 PM EDT
[#7]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
snip
View Quote

So just to establish my baseline and not be accused by you of misrepresenting your position; All sin is equal.

Minor sins and mortal sins are equal in God's eyes. Thus, if one believed they were "saved" but was still to commit any future sins, from lying and greed to rape and murder, without repenting or atoning for them prior to death, they could still reach salvation.

Do I have that correct?
Link Posted: 5/10/2021 6:07:23 PM EDT
[#8]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
snip
View Quote


Do I have this right?

"So then the answer is "yes" regarding my question of:

"Since you believe that everyday sins and mortal sins are equal in God's eyes, are you saying that if one was saved but was still to commit any sin, from lust and greed to rape and murder, without repenting or atoning for them prior to death, then they could still reach salvation?"

And the answer is "yes" because "Christ's death on the Cross" is "substitutionary atonement"?"
Link Posted: 5/10/2021 6:12:43 PM EDT
[#9]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Then according to your logic Jesus wasn't telling the whole truth when He said "believe in me and you have been saved" since we still have to cross that finish line that no one knows they will.


View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:


Would you link to the post where I "misrepresented you about answering at all"?

If you offer kid has a choice between fried chicken and a cheeseburger for dinner and the kid chooses fried chicken, but you say "no, I promised you a cheeseburger so that is what you will have" your kid does not have free will to choose.

Then according to your logic Jesus wasn't telling the whole truth when He said "believe in me and you have been saved" since we still have to cross that finish line that no one knows they will.




Please link to the post where I misrepresented you about answering at all
Link Posted: 5/10/2021 6:35:40 PM EDT
[#10]
You know here Jesus talks about those who call Him Lord, speak of their wonderful works, and didn't get into the Kingdom:

21 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' 23 And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'

Now find me a man of faith in the Bible who lost the Holy Spirit and went to hell.
Link Posted: 5/10/2021 6:36:56 PM EDT
[#11]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


But aren't you saying this same thing yourself?:


View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Then according to your logic Jesus wasn't telling the whole truth when He said "believe in me and you have been saved" since we still have to cross that finish line that no one knows they will.


But aren't you saying this same thing yourself?:

Quoted:
Again, I can say I am saved because I trust God's promises; however, I have not actually been saved until such as my body is redeemed.

Pay attention to the red part.
Link Posted: 5/10/2021 6:39:15 PM EDT
[#12]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Please link to the post where I misrepresented you about answering at all
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Please link to the post where I misrepresented you about answering at all




Quoted:

I have not argued anything.  I asked a question about whether or not man has free will.  You have not answered that question.

Link Posted: 5/10/2021 6:43:34 PM EDT
[#13]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
I just quoted the text.

You're assuming no one who sees God clearly in eternity wouldn't desire Him.

eta: worse yet, you're assuming God isn't infinitely forgiving.


View Quote


Did Adam see God clearly prior to the fall?
Link Posted: 5/10/2021 6:47:13 PM EDT
[#14]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:





View Quote



Fair enough. I was hoping for a yes or no, but your answer was clear enough. Man can reject salvation until he accepts it. After that, man is unable to change his mind i.el. (My word follow) he no longer has free will
Link Posted: 5/10/2021 7:35:05 PM EDT
[#15]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
snip
View Quote


So just to establish my baseline and not be accused by you of misrepresenting your position; All sin is equal.

Minor sins and mortal sins are equal in God's eyes. Thus, if one believed they were "saved" but was still to commit any future sins, from lying and greed to rape and murder, without repenting or atoning for them prior to death, they could still reach salvation.

Got it, and thanks.
Link Posted: 5/10/2021 7:35:59 PM EDT
[#16]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:



Fair enough. I was hoping for a yes or no, but your answer was clear enough. Man can reject salvation until he accepts it. After that, man is unable to change his mind i.el. (My word follow) he no longer has free will
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:








Fair enough. I was hoping for a yes or no, but your answer was clear enough. Man can reject salvation until he accepts it. After that, man is unable to change his mind i.el. (My word follow) he no longer has free will

Depends what you mean by free will.

If you mean, a decision can be made to choose anything, at any time, for no reason at all (even against your own will - this is what libertarian free will requires) ... well, no. You don't have that. LFW enables a world where a loving father can walk into his daughters bedroom and toss her out the window to her death, when he didn't want to ... well, because that's a possible option, and to limit that off from him means his will isn't free of his desires.

If by free, you mean free to choose what you want of the choices you're presented? Yes, you do.
Link Posted: 5/10/2021 7:39:36 PM EDT
[#17]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
If by free, you mean free to choose what you want of the choices you're presented? Yes, you do.
View Quote


@FlashMan-7k
I think I am following you, but I don't want to put words in your mouth. So, in your belief, one can reject salvation, and even after they accept it, can they can still reject it later in the future? This is how I understand free will, is that how you understand it as well?

I'm trying to get a baseline because it seems to me that you are not in the OSAS camp, but I'm not quite sure.
Link Posted: 5/10/2021 7:59:36 PM EDT
[#18]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:



Fair enough. I was hoping for a yes or no, but your answer was clear enough. Man can reject salvation until he accepts it. After that, man is unable to change his mind i.el. (My word follow) he no longer has free will
View Quote
There are a couple of things also present: the Holy Spirit and the two natures of flesh and spirit (Galatians 5). We have a choice on which to follow, but that choice doesn't nullify God's promises or Christ's blood.
Link Posted: 5/10/2021 8:16:36 PM EDT
[#19]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
"Repentance" is a big word study for you. The big issue is that the English word has a different definition than the Greek word it's used for (metanoia).  
View Quote


As far as the whole "does metanoia mean repentance" issue, unless someone feels that this may trip them up in their faith or understanding, there is no point to go into great detail. IMO, and that of the overwhelming majority of Catholic and non-Catholic theologians, it's a giant nothing burger.

Long and short:
The word "repentance" and its frequent NT usage is VERY problematic for OSAS scholars and adherents. If you have to repent when it speaks about the post "saved" state, that means it is conditional.

So, in an attempt to remove that word some OSAS theologians went back to the word metanoia, which does mean repentance according to Strongs and Classical Greek lexicons, but got a little bit creative with it. They argued that when broken down, metanoia transformed into two similar but separate base words and argued that these led to a better translation. Well, it just so happened the two words they "found more suitable" changed the definition from repentance to "a complete change of mind". This would nullify the idea of repentance and help prove OSAS.

Their entire dismissal of the 2000 year Catholic and Protestant doctrine of repentance, rests on one word being incorrect.

Now, this is not some new discovery or epiphany. Many non-Catholic theologians who stood to have their assertions bolstered by this translation studied it and rejected it:

Luther: Studied it in depth and said repentance is the best word.
Calvin: His pre-destination/elect doctrine REALLY would have benefited from this, but he studied it and said that "all things taken as a whole, 'repentance'" is an "acceptable" word.
KJV scholars: Looked at it and dismissed it soundly.

It wasn't until the New Reformers Movement, circa mid to late 1800s, that this idea gained traction...surprisingly only among OSAS theologians. Treadwell Walden being the first one circa 1875(?). The only scholars today who push it are guys like A.T. Robinson, Guy Nave, Edward J. Anton etc., all of which are...you guessed it, OSAS guys. Almost all other theologians don't even see this as an issue worthy of debate.

The latest monograph devoted just to this, Alexis Torrance’s Repentance in Late Antiquity (2013), concludes that:

While it is true that metanoia as a “change of mind” is a broader term compared with repentance, it nevertheless contains within its semantic range (as will become clear) the concepts of regret, sorrow for sin, and moral amendment associated with “repentance.” To completely dissociate the words, then, would be unwise, since it would give the impression of a total conceptual discontinuity when certain fundamental continuities are evident.


In short, only OSAS guys hold out hope.
Link Posted: 5/10/2021 9:02:28 PM EDT
[#20]
The way I understand it, is your name is written in the book of life at birth. It's there until it's blotted out by the choices we make. One can be forgiven until they die if it's sincere. Salvation isn't automatic, but it's available to all. ymmv
Link Posted: 5/11/2021 6:41:20 AM EDT
[#21]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


As far as the whole "does metanoia mean repentance" issue, unless someone feels that this may trip them up in their faith or understanding, there is no point to go into great detail. IMO, in that of the overwhelming majority of Catholic and non-Catholic theologians, it's a giant nothing burger.

Long and short:
The word "repentance" and its frequent NT usage is VERY problematic for OSAS scholars and adherents. If you have to repent when it speaks about the post "saved" state, that means it is conditional.

So, in an attempt to remove that word some OSAS theologians went back to the word metanoia, which does mean repentance according to Strongs and Classical Greek lexicons, but got a little bit creative with it. They argued that when broken down, metanoia transformed into two similar but separate base words and argued that these led to a better translation. Well, it just so happened the two words they "found more suitable" changed the definition from repentance to "a complete change of mind". This would nullify the idea of repentance and help prove OSAS.

Their entire dismissal of the 2000 year Catholic and Protestant doctrine of repentance, rests on one word being incorrect.

Now, this is not some new discovery or epiphany. Many non-Catholic theologians who stood to have their assertions bolstered by this translation studied it and rejected it:

Luther: Studied it in depth and said repentance is the best word.
Calvin: His pre-destination/elect doctrine REALLY would have benefited from this, but he studied it and said that "all things taken as a whole, 'repentance'" is an "acceptable" word.
KJV scholars: Looked at it and dismissed it soundly.

It wasn't until the New Reformers Movement, circa mid to late 1800s, that this idea gained traction...surprisingly only among OSAS theologians. Treadwell Walden being the first one circa 1875(?). The only scholars today who push it are guys like A.T. Robinson, Guy Nave, Edward J. Anton etc., all of which are...you guessed it, OSAS guys. Almost all other theologians don't even see this as an issue worthy of debate.

The latest monograph devoted just to this, Alexis Torrance's Repentance in Late Antiquity (2013), concludes that:

While it is true that metanoia as a "change of mind" is a broader term compared with repentance, it nevertheless contains within its semantic range (as will become clear) the concepts of regret, sorrow for sin, and moral amendment associated with "repentance." To completely dissociate the words, then, would be unwise, since it would give the impression of a total conceptual discontinuity when certain fundamental continuities are evident.


In short, only OSAS guys hold out hope.
View Quote
I get the impression that you don't read any OSAS authors, because you really don't accurately portray their views. Could you name any without Google?

Btw how are you citing Luther and Calvin on an English word? Lol. ETA: the big controversy in their day about Tyndale's "repent" was his translation of metanoia to that rather than the word "penance" as Jerome (IIRC) mistakenly translated it to in Latin. Nice try at a deceptive sleight of hand; that really is intellectually dishonest of you (or whomever you got that copypasta junk from).

Also, in older English versions, God repents in the OT (Jonah 3:10 being one of them) In newer versions, they usually change it to "change of mind" or some variation of that. In the LXX, the word metanoia is used for God.



Link Posted: 5/11/2021 8:35:45 AM EDT
[#22]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
I get the impression that you don't read any OSAS authors, because you really don't accurately portray their views. Could you name any without Google?

Btw how are you citing Luther and Calvin on an English word? Lol. ETA: the big controversy in their day about Tyndale's "repent" was his translation of metanoia to that rather than the word "penance" as Jerome (IIRC) mistakenly translated it to in Latin. Nice try at a deceptive sleight of hand; that really is intellectually dishonest of you (or whomever you got that copypasta junk from).

Also, in older English versions, God repents in the OT (Jonah 3:10 being one of them) In newer versions, they usually change it to "change of mind" or some variation of that. In the LXX, the word metanoia is used for God.



View Quote


Not copy pasta, my own work.

As for the rest, if you say so.
Link Posted: 5/11/2021 8:49:26 AM EDT
[#23]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Not copy pasta, my own work.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Not copy pasta, my own work.
Ok, so it's your dishonesty then.

As for the rest, if you say so.
And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not. - Jonah 3:10 KJV

And God seeth their works, that they have turned back from their evil way, and God repenteth of the evil that He spake of doing to them, and he hath not done it. - YLT

And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, which he said he would do unto them; and he did it not. - ERV (1885)

Now look up Gen 6:6, Exo 32:14, Deu 32:36, Jdg 2:18, 1Sa 15:11, 1Sa 15:35, 2Sa 24:16, 1Ch 21:15, Psa 90:13, Psa 106:45, Psa 135:14 in an old version. God repents - how is that possible when it only applies in the context of 'turning from sin'?

Seems to me that you shouldn't read words in the Bible with preconceived contexts. Seems you should define words by their context.

Link Posted: 5/11/2021 9:14:52 AM EDT
[#24]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
I haven't given conflicting answers.

Yeah, a Christian can commit crimes - David did, so did Solomon and most of the OT prophets that the NT praises as men of faith.

Many OSAS preachers will talk about God chastising His children; however, that doesn't stop them from being His children.

View Quote

Chastisement and eternal damnation are two wholly different outcomes. I assume you know the difference.
Link Posted: 5/11/2021 9:18:56 AM EDT
[#25]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Who knows the answer, or rather who wants to commit a mortal sin (are there immortal sins? Either one will work for me) and somehow communicate back to us what happens.
If I had to guess, I'm sure I'm going to die with some kind of sin. I just don't know how I'm going to let y'all know how it turned out.
View Quote

We can start a separate thread about purgatory. Or maybe the 6 page treatise I penned here at least a decade ago is still in the archives.
Link Posted: 5/11/2021 10:02:39 AM EDT
[#26]
Link Posted: 5/11/2021 10:14:03 AM EDT
[#27]
I think that no matter the deffinition of repent in reference to God doing it, it should be noted that If God, either changed His mind or felt sorry for what He did, this would denigrate  the attributes of God.  This word therefore can only be used as anthropomorphism. We are referring to an all knowing,Perfect God.
Link Posted: 5/11/2021 11:27:00 AM EDT
[#28]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
I think that no matter the deffinition of repent in reference to God doing it, it should be noted that If God, either changed His mind or felt sorry for what He did, this would denigrate  the attributes of God.  This word therefore can only be used as anthropomorphism. We are referring to an all knowing,Perfect God.
View Quote


I agree, and to the best of my knowledge it is never used like that, or in that sense, in either the old or new testaments. In  Genesis 6:6, most use regret rather than repent as figurative, not literal meanings. In Jonah 3:9, Who knows? God may again repent and turn from his blazing wrath, so that we will not perish.” it is understood in the same way. You are correct in that one should be cautious not to ascribe human characteristics to God and see them more than a reflection of human language's limitations in describing His eternal mystery rather than taking them literally.

The issue would be more along the lines of when Jesus says repent, some are trying to say it means "change your mind completely" (in a one time final act) and be saved (once and for all/sealed). Again, it's a moot point since no respected non-OSAS scholars take this notion seriously.

Bottom line, there are some people so determined to confirm their doctrine, they tear apart the Scriptures so drastically that they apply conflicting methods to suit their confirmation bias. Here they will assert a word must be literal because it would meet their need, but there the same word must be figurative because it doesn't. Here we need to use the Greek word, but there the Hebrew word is better. Here, let's not take that word at face value but rather break it down in order to make two more words that would better fit my idea. There, that broken word cannot be broken down...and so on.

Interestingly, when you look at wikipedia you get a very OSAS perspective. (Remember that anyone can contribute to wiki. I've contributed to a couple of pages in my field). They even argue that Luther, Calvin, and the author of the Douay-Rheims all wanted to alter metanoia to "change of mind". However, when you look at the footnotes, the author/s of the wikipedia page use almost entirely OSAS scholars and sources. If you check more respected outside sources from known theologians, you will find the same quotes the wiki page uses for Luther, Calvin, etc. and find that they are only partial quotes, taken out of context. You also see that certain statements made on the wiki page about "consensus", "complete agreement", and "have ended the debate" are far from true.

It would seem the OSAS sect are quite a fanatical group.
Link Posted: 5/11/2021 11:34:30 AM EDT
[#29]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
It seems a few are starting to get a little too personal in this discussion.  Tone it back, focus on the topic or step away.  This has been a relatively good exchange of ideas but I will remind everyone that you are not going to change anyone's beliefs via the internet.
View Quote


Is that a challenge?
Link Posted: 5/11/2021 11:45:46 AM EDT
[#30]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

Chastisement and eternal damnation are two wholly different outcomes. I assume you know the difference.
View Quote


Yup, but eternal damnation would negate their argument, so we better change the word and meaning. While other non-Catholic theologians take the existing words/material in the Bible and find alternative understanding of existing doctrines that can be deduced from older ones, New Reformists just invent new words and make new doctrines out of thin air, and then make everything else fit it.

One is working with the Bible to develop a doctrine (Protestants), while the other is beginning from the doctrine and transforms the Bible.(Reformists)

Protestants have it right in this case.
Link Posted: 5/11/2021 11:59:44 AM EDT
[#31]
Link Posted: 5/11/2021 1:20:56 PM EDT
[#32]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
In the LXX, the word metanoia is used for God.
View Quote


I have no idea where you are getting this from.

Harper's Bible Dictionary:

God: The most common word for God in the NT (1,318 times) is the Greek word theos (‘god’), used often by the LXX (more than 4,000 times) primarily as the translation of the usual Hebrew word for God, elohim. This word was also used by the LXX for the pagan gods, just as it was the standard word for the gods of the Greeks and Romans of NT times. Although the NT writers sometimes use ‘god’ for the pagan gods (e.g., 1 Cor. 8:5) and on rare occasions apparently apply it theologically to the glorified Christ (e.g., John 20:28), the vast majority of cases refers to the God revealed in the history of Israel and in the person of Jesus. Thus, ‘the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ’ is a frequent designation (e.g., Rom. 15:6).

Lord: In the OT , the chief title and representative name for God was the individual and personal name ‘Yahweh,’ translated kyrios (Gk., ‘Lord’) in the LXX and ‘the Lord‘ by several English versions. This name was used by OT authors more than 6,000 times, compared to about 2,500 times for elohim, ‘God.’ The NT continues to use ‘Lord’ for God (about 100 times), primarily in quotations from the LXX (e.g., Mark 1:3; 12:11; Acts 2:34) and in set phrases such as ‘hand of the Lord’ (Luke 1:66). The vast majority of the 719 occurrences of kyrios (‘Lord’) in the NT refers to Jesus, however, usually as the exalted Christ (e.g., Acts 2:36; John 20:28). Thus, the two most common OT names for deity, ‘God’ and ‘Lord,’ are used in the NT not only for God but also (though rarely in the case of the word ‘God’) for Jesus as the exalted Lord of the church’s faith. A much less common word for ‘Lord’ in the LXX, despoteµs (Gk., ‘lord,’ ‘sovereign,’ ‘master’) is also used in the NT both for God (Luke 2:29; Acts 4:24; Rev. 6:10) and for Christ (Jude 4; 2 Pet. 2:1).

Father: The common ancient Near Eastern idea that the deity is the father of the clan or nation was appropriated sparingly by Israel, which understood it in an adoptive, not biological, sense (Exod. 4:22-23; Hos. 11:1-4). Although ‘Father’ never became a common name for God in the OT , it was used more freely in the later OT period (e.g., Isa. 63:16) and especially in post-ot Judaism. ‘Father’ was also a common name for deity among the Greeks, being applied to Zeus, for example, not only because of his rulership among the gods, but because of his love and care. This general designation of God as ‘Father’ is found only rarely in the NT : e.g., Heb. 12:9 (‘Father of spirits’) and James 1:17 (‘Father of lights,’ i.e., the heavenly bodies).

Link Posted: 5/13/2021 9:58:13 AM EDT
[#33]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

Depends what you mean by free will.

If you mean, a decision can be made to choose anything, at any time, for no reason at all (even against your own will - this is what libertarian free will requires) ... well, no. You don't have that. LFW enables a world where a loving father can walk into his daughters bedroom and toss her out the window to her death, when he didn't want to ... well, because that's a possible option, and to limit that off from him means his will isn't free of his desires.

If by free, you mean free to choose what you want of the choices you're presented? Yes, you do.
View Quote


The possibility of sin is an inevitable consequence of free will.

Love requires the free assent of the will.

If one of the "choices you're presented" is not the choice to reject God's generous offer of salvation, unmerited by us, then there can be no love.
Link Posted: 5/13/2021 2:38:46 PM EDT
[#34]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:





Proselytizing is frowned upon.
View Quote


Who do you think you are, Pope Francis? I think he might know one of your secret handshakes.



Link Posted: 5/13/2021 2:55:59 PM EDT
[#35]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Who do you think you are, Pope Francis?
View Quote


No kidding! What was with statement about not trying to reach out/evangelize people for fear of offending them?

History has shown us that you can profess Christ AND not offend. I know he probably didn't mean it how it sounded, but that man can screw up a speech or put his foot in his mouth like no one else.
Link Posted: 5/13/2021 5:56:01 PM EDT
[#36]
Link Posted: 5/13/2021 8:14:46 PM EDT
[#37]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


I have no idea where you are getting this from.

Harper's Bible Dictionary:

God: The most common word for God in the NT (1,318 times) is the Greek word theos ('god'), used often by the LXX (more than 4,000 times) primarily as the translation of the usual Hebrew word for God, elohim. This word was also used by the LXX for the pagan gods, just as it was the standard word for the gods of the Greeks and Romans of NT times. Although the NT writers sometimes use 'god' for the pagan gods (e.g., 1 Cor. 8:5) and on rare occasions apparently apply it theologically to the glorified Christ (e.g., John 20:28), the vast majority of cases refers to the God revealed in the history of Israel and in the person of Jesus. Thus, 'the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ' is a frequent designation (e.g., Rom. 15:6).

Lord: In the OT , the chief title and representative name for God was the individual and personal name 'Yahweh,' translated kyrios (Gk., 'Lord') in the LXX and 'the Lord' by several English versions. This name was used by OT authors more than 6,000 times, compared to about 2,500 times for elohim, 'God.' The NT continues to use 'Lord' for God (about 100 times), primarily in quotations from the LXX (e.g., Mark 1:3; 12:11; Acts 2:34) and in set phrases such as 'hand of the Lord' (Luke 1:66). The vast majority of the 719 occurrences of kyrios ('Lord') in the NT refers to Jesus, however, usually as the exalted Christ (e.g., Acts 2:36; John 20:28). Thus, the two most common OT names for deity, 'God' and 'Lord,' are used in the NT not only for God but also (though rarely in the case of the word 'God') for Jesus as the exalted Lord of the church's faith. A much less common word for 'Lord' in the LXX, despotes (Gk., 'lord,' 'sovereign,' 'master') is also used in the NT both for God (Luke 2:29; Acts 4:24; Rev. 6:10) and for Christ (Jude 4; 2 Pet. 2:1).

Father: The common ancient Near Eastern idea that the deity is the father of the clan or nation was appropriated sparingly by Israel, which understood it in an adoptive, not biological, sense (Exod. 4:22-23; Hos. 11:1-4). Although 'Father' never became a common name for God in the OT , it was used more freely in the later OT period (e.g., Isa. 63:16) and especially in post-ot Judaism. 'Father' was also a common name for deity among the Greeks, being applied to Zeus, for example, not only because of his rulership among the gods, but because of his love and care. This general designation of God as 'Father' is found only rarely in the NT : e.g., Heb. 12:9 ('Father of spirits') and James 1:17 ('Father of lights,' i.e., the heavenly bodies).

View Quote
Now that's seriously obtuse.

I was talking about how God "repents" in the OT. In the LXX, the word metanoia is used instead. You blew off the rest of my post and only attacked a point that I wasn't making.

Either you're colossally ignorant or malicious.  
Link Posted: 5/13/2021 8:37:28 PM EDT
[#38]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
I was talking about how God "repents" in the OT. In the LXX, the word metanoia is used instead.
Either you're colossally ignorant or malicious.  
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
I was talking about how God "repents" in the OT. In the LXX, the word metanoia is used instead.
Either you're colossally ignorant or malicious.  


Quoted:
In the LXX, the word metanoia is used for God.
Link Posted: 5/13/2021 9:19:03 PM EDT
[#39]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


View Quote
Quote the whole post.

Malicious.
Link Posted: 5/13/2021 10:15:14 PM EDT
[#40]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
lol. And ignoring the fact that you associate with an organization that in practice condones what you criticize others for.
Lol can't respond to recent posts so now you're digging up old ones.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
lol. And ignoring the fact that you associate with an organization that in practice condones what you criticize others for.
Lol can't respond to recent posts so now you're digging up old ones.

Quoted:
Riiight.

Quoted:
Nice try at a deceptive sleight of hand...(or whomever you got that copypasta junk from).

Quoted:
Ok, so it's your dishonesty then.

Quoted:
Either you're colossally ignorant or malicious.  

Quoted:
Quote the whole post.
Malicious.


This isn't GD.
Link Posted: 5/14/2021 11:35:20 PM EDT
[#41]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


The possibility of sin is an inevitable consequence of free will.

Love requires the free assent of the will.

If one of the "choices you're presented" is not the choice to reject God's generous offer of salvation, unmerited by us, then there can be no love.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:

Depends what you mean by free will.

If you mean, a decision can be made to choose anything, at any time, for no reason at all (even against your own will - this is what libertarian free will requires) ... well, no. You don't have that. LFW enables a world where a loving father can walk into his daughters bedroom and toss her out the window to her death, when he didn't want to ... well, because that's a possible option, and to limit that off from him means his will isn't free of his desires.

If by free, you mean free to choose what you want of the choices you're presented? Yes, you do.


The possibility of sin is an inevitable consequence of free will.

Love requires the free assent of the will.

If one of the "choices you're presented" is not the choice to reject God's generous offer of salvation, unmerited by us, then there can be no love.

This can't be a useful discussion if we don't both say what we mean by the phrase "free will."

We could be talking about completely different things by that phrase.

What do you mean when you say "free will?"
Link Posted: 5/17/2021 11:52:09 AM EDT
[#42]
Quoted:
I’ve been trying to understand what the New Testament teaches about sin, repentance and being saved by Jesus.

I’ve read that there are two different kinds of sins, venial sins & grave or mortal sins.

And I’ve read that Christians believe that committing a mortal sin will cut you off from the Kingdom of G-d.

Mortal sins are not just things like murder either. They are some pretty common sins that I won’t list but it’s safe to say a lot of people commit them on a very regular basis.

So what happens if you have committed one or more mortal sins and then die before you go to confession?

What happens if you’re in the middle of committing one of those mortal sins and die? (You’re presumably not even truly sorry yet or else you wouldn’t be doing it to begin with.)

From what I’ve read the Church teaches you will go to hell.

But if that’s true then why did Jesus die for our sins? I don’t understand how it’s possible that Jesus died for our sins and yet even if we believe in him, we can still go to hell if we didn’t go to confession for those sins before we die.

I thought they were already paid for through the blood of Jesus.
View Quote


OP, this is exactly where I can't warm up to the Roman Catholic church.  I read from one Catholic author that missing mass is a mortal sin.  Well, what if you have the flu and can't make it?

I always go back to the thief on the cross.  Jesus told him he would be in paradise, yet  he never confessed a single sin, attended a single mass, consumed a single Eucharist, and was never water baptized.

I've never heard any convincing argument against the thief on the cross being saved even though he never did a single one of those sacraments.
Link Posted: 5/17/2021 11:55:29 AM EDT
[#43]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Color me surprised then:
Are Catholics born again?

Catholics and Protestants agree that to be saved, you have to be born again. Jesus said so: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3).

When a Catholic says that he has been “born again,” he refers to the transformation that God’s grace accomplished in him during baptism. Evangelical Protestants typically mean something quite different when they talk about being “born again.”

"The anti-baptismal regeneration position has no biblical basis whatsoever. So the answer to the question, “Are Catholics born again?” is yes! Since all Catholics have been baptized, all Catholics have been born again. Catholics should ask Protestants, “Are you born again—the way the Bible understands that concept?” If the Evangelical has not been properly water baptized, he has not been born again “the Bible way,” regardless of what he may think."
View Quote



I am neither a Catholic nor a Protestant. I consider myself Evangelical.  I had a genuine "born again" experience when I first believed and prayed to God sincerely.  There is no way that experience was my imagination or a demonic fake.  Satan could never counterfeit the complete feeling of joy and love that was imparted to me. I was transformed into something new at that moment.  There is no doctrine, church, preacher, priest, opinion, writing, judgment, or anything else that will ever convince me that my experience was anything other than genuinely being "born again."
Link Posted: 5/17/2021 12:04:36 PM EDT
[#44]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
OP, this is exactly where I can't warm up to the Roman Catholic church.  I read from one Catholic author that missing mass is a mortal sin.  Well, what if you have the flu and can't make it?
View Quote


Then it wouldn't be a mortal sin.
Link Posted: 5/17/2021 12:22:01 PM EDT
[#45]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


OP, this is exactly where I can't warm up to the Roman Catholic church.  I read from one Catholic author that missing mass is a mortal sin.  Well, what if you have the flu and can't make it?

I always go back to the thief on the cross.  Jesus told him he would be in paradise, yet  he never confessed a single sin, attended a single mass, consumed a single Eucharist, and was never water baptized.

I've never heard any convincing argument against the thief on the cross being saved even though he never did a single one of those sacraments.
View Quote
An even better example is the woman in Luke 7:36-50, who didn't speak a word.

(BTW this is probably a separate event and a different woman than when Mary Magdalene did similar in the Upper Room).
Link Posted: 5/17/2021 12:33:28 PM EDT
[#46]
I can't quote the specific Scripture, but if Jesus suffered a brutal, horrible execution to save you in the first place, would He then just let  you slip out of His salvation easily once you've believed?

I'd think losing your salvation is possible, but only if you are so depraved you renounce and repudiate your former belief and acceptance of the gift of salvation.

But I admit, that's just my logic.
Link Posted: 5/17/2021 12:37:12 PM EDT
[#47]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Once saved, you will persevere (war against sin for the rest of your life in this world).

Once saved, always saved is terrible language and should not be used anymore.
View Quote


I believe once you are saved, the Holy Spirit has only begun working on you, not that He is finished.

Once you are saved  you will become more and more conformed to Christ and less to the world.

It's not an overnight or instantaneous thing in most cases.

"Salvation is a marriage, not a wedding."
Link Posted: 5/17/2021 12:54:31 PM EDT
[#48]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


OP, this is exactly where I can't warm up to the Roman Catholic church.  I read from one Catholic author that missing mass is a mortal sin.  (1) Well, what if you have the flu and can't make it?

I always go back to the thief on the cross.  Jesus told him he would be in paradise, yet  he never confessed a single sin(2), attended a single mass(3), consumed a single Eucharist(4), and was never water baptized(5).

I've never heard any convincing argument against the thief on the cross being saved even though he never did a single one of those sacraments(6).
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


OP, this is exactly where I can't warm up to the Roman Catholic church.  I read from one Catholic author that missing mass is a mortal sin.  (1) Well, what if you have the flu and can't make it?

I always go back to the thief on the cross.  Jesus told him he would be in paradise, yet  he never confessed a single sin(2), attended a single mass(3), consumed a single Eucharist(4), and was never water baptized(5).

I've never heard any convincing argument against the thief on the cross being saved even though he never did a single one of those sacraments(6).


I've numbered for ease of reply:

1) Then it wouldn't be a mortal or even venial sin. The obligation to attend Mass on holy days and Sundays is predicated on the ability to do so, but draws its authority from Matthew 18, and is not binding for multiple reasons which are logical:
personal illness, care of someone else (elderly, infant, etc.) where one cannot go due to caring for someone who themselves cannot/should not go, lack of transportation/distance, etc.

2) Sir, it is very plain the thief confessed his sins on the cross in contrast to the sinlessness of Christ, as recorded in a general manner. As we read in Luke 23:
[39] And one of those robbers who were hanged, blasphemed him, saying: If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. [40] But the other answering, rebuked him, saying: Neither dost thou fear God, seeing thou art condemned under the same condemnation?

[41] And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this man hath done no evil.
[42] And he said to Jesus: Lord, remember me when thou shalt come into thy kingdom. [43] And Jesus said to him: Amen I say to thee, this day thou shalt be with me in paradise.


3) Lol, what a silly thing to say. There had only been one Mass at that point, and only Christ and the Apostles were there: the Last Supper wherein Christ fulfilled the paschal mystery in a pre-figured manner, finalizing the Passover as celebrated theretofore, and initiating the sacramental aspects of what would take place on Calvary.

4) Again, under what ability and thus obligation  would this be possible? Does Christ command the impossible? No. (were receiving the Eucharist an obligation, which from the perspective of Divine Law it is not)

5) Institution of a particular sacrament != beginning of obligation, particularly due to potential inability (which, as discussed before, renders such obligation moot).

6) His name, in Tradition, is St. Dismas, and the Catholic Church very much holds that despite your objections as believing the Church to hold said positions (which She doesn't), the Church recognizes St. Dismas as indeed saved.

This is why Fulton Sheen wrote the following:

There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church — which is, of course, quite a different thing. These millions can hardly be blamed for hating Catholics because Catholics “adore statues”; because they “put the Blessed Mother on the same level with God”; because they say “indulgence is a permission to commit sin”; because the Pope “is a Fascist”; because the “Church is the defender of Capitalism.” If the Church taught or believed any one of these things it should be hated, but the fact is that the Church does not believe nor teach any one of them. It follows then that the hatred of the millions is directed against error and not against truth. As a matter of fact, if we Catholics believed all of the untruths and lies which were said against the Church, we probably would hate the Church a thousand times more than they do.

If I were not a Catholic, and were looking for the true Church in the world today, I would look for the one Church which did not get along well with the world; in other words, I would look for the Church which the world hates… Look for the Church that is hated by the world, as Christ was hated by the world. Look for the Church which is accused of being behind the times, as Our Lord was accused of being ignorant and never having learned. Look for the Church which men sneer at as socially inferior, as they sneered at Our Lord because He came from Nazareth. Look for the Church which is accused of having a devil, as Our Lord was accused of being possessed by Beelzebub, the Prince of Devils. Look for the Church which, in seasons of bigotry, men say must be destroyed in the name of God as men crucified Christ and thought they had done a service to God. Look for the Church which the world rejects because it claims it is infallible, as Pilate rejected Christ because He called Himself the Truth. Look for the Church which is rejected by the world as Our Lord was rejected by men…

If then, the hatred of the Church is founded on erroneous beliefs, it follows that basic need of the day is instruction. Love depends on knowledge for we cannot aspire nor desire the unknown.

Our great country is filled with what might be called marginal Christians, i.e., those who live on the fringe of religion and who are descendants of Christian living parents, but who now are Christians only in name. They retain a few of its ideals out of indolence and force of habit; they knew the glorious history of Christianity only through certain emasculated forms of it, which have married the spirit of the age and are now dying with it. Of Catholicism and its sacraments, its pardon, its grace, its certitude and its peace, they know nothing except a few inherited prejudices. And yet they are good people who want to do the right thing, but who have no definite philosophy concerning it. They educate their children without religion, and yet they resent the compromising morals of their children. They would be angry if you told them they were not Christian, and yet they do not believe that Christ is God. They resent being called pagans and yet they never take a practical cognizance of the existence of God. There is only one thing of which they are certain and that is that things are not right as they are. It is just that single certitude which makes them what might be called the great “potentials,” for they are ready to be pulled in either of two directions. Within a short time they must take sides; they must either gather with Christ or they must scatter; they must either be with Him or against Him; they must either be on the cross as other Christs, or under it as other executioners. Which way will these marginal Christians tend?… Only this much is certain. Being human and having hearts they want more than class struggle and economics; they want Life, they want Truth, and they want Love. In a word, they want Christ.

It is to these millions who believe wrong things about the Church and to these marginal Christians, that this little book is sent. It is not to prove that they are “wrong”; it is not to prove that we are “right”; it is merely to present the truth in order that the truth may conquer through the grace of God.”

https://aleteia.org/2016/06/20/father-fulton-sheen-the-millions-who-hate-the-catholic-church/

Link Posted: 5/18/2021 8:22:21 AM EDT
[#49]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

This can't be a useful discussion if we don't both say what we mean by the phrase "free will."

We could be talking about completely different things by that phrase.

What do you mean when you say "free will?"
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

Depends what you mean by free will.

If you mean, a decision can be made to choose anything, at any time, for no reason at all (even against your own will - this is what libertarian free will requires) ... well, no. You don't have that. LFW enables a world where a loving father can walk into his daughters bedroom and toss her out the window to her death, when he didn't want to ... well, because that's a possible option, and to limit that off from him means his will isn't free of his desires.

If by free, you mean free to choose what you want of the choices you're presented? Yes, you do.


The possibility of sin is an inevitable consequence of free will.

Love requires the free assent of the will.

If one of the "choices you're presented" is not the choice to reject God's generous offer of salvation, unmerited by us, then there can be no love.

This can't be a useful discussion if we don't both say what we mean by the phrase "free will."

We could be talking about completely different things by that phrase.

What do you mean when you say "free will?"


You are so right @Flashman-7k !! I thought I knew what people meant by free will until I started learning about it in college. The more I read about it the more difficult it seems to define.
Link Posted: 5/18/2021 8:39:44 AM EDT
[#50]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


OP, this is exactly where I can't warm up to the Roman Catholic church.  I read from one Catholic author that missing mass is a mortal sin.  Well, what if you have the flu and can't make it?

I always go back to the thief on the cross.  Jesus told him he would be in paradise, yet  he never confessed a single sin, attended a single mass, consumed a single Eucharist, and was never water baptized.

I've never heard any convincing argument against the thief on the cross being saved even though he never did a single one of those sacraments.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
I’ve been trying to understand what the New Testament teaches about sin, repentance and being saved by Jesus.

I’ve read that there are two different kinds of sins, venial sins & grave or mortal sins.

And I’ve read that Christians believe that committing a mortal sin will cut you off from the Kingdom of G-d.

Mortal sins are not just things like murder either. They are some pretty common sins that I won’t list but it’s safe to say a lot of people commit them on a very regular basis.

So what happens if you have committed one or more mortal sins and then die before you go to confession?

What happens if you’re in the middle of committing one of those mortal sins and die? (You’re presumably not even truly sorry yet or else you wouldn’t be doing it to begin with.)

From what I’ve read the Church teaches you will go to hell.

But if that’s true then why did Jesus die for our sins? I don’t understand how it’s possible that Jesus died for our sins and yet even if we believe in him, we can still go to hell if we didn’t go to confession for those sins before we die.

I thought they were already paid for through the blood of Jesus.


OP, this is exactly where I can't warm up to the Roman Catholic church.  I read from one Catholic author that missing mass is a mortal sin.  Well, what if you have the flu and can't make it?

I always go back to the thief on the cross.  Jesus told him he would be in paradise, yet  he never confessed a single sin, attended a single mass, consumed a single Eucharist, and was never water baptized.

I've never heard any convincing argument against the thief on the cross being saved even though he never did a single one of those sacraments.


Me either.
Page / 13
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top