In John 6:44 Jesus says" You can only come to me if you are drawn to me by my father" In early greek Bibles he said" You can only come to me if you are selected to come to me by my father" Earlier in John Jesus said"You can only go to the FATHER through me. Both of these passages would indicate some will not be drawn/selected by the Father to go to Jesus and therefore can not go to the Father(?) Take for instance someone who blasphemes THE HOLY SPIRIT or someone never introduced to Jesus(which does not hardly happen anymore). This would bear out Predestination according to Calvin, Martin Luther,and St. Augustine(in his final years)when he said Man lost his free will when Adam disobeyed God the FATHER and saddled us with "original sin"which overcomes our will. Therefore my question is "Isn't only by GOD's GRACE THAT THOSE WHO ARE SAVED BY HIM and those who who ARE NOT GIVEN HIS GRACE ARE PREDESTINED TO BE DAMMED and there is nothing we can do or say that will earn HIS GRACE. THIS IS PREDESTINATION

What futility! That we have no free will after all but are just puppets in the hands of a vengefull God. No wonder the Catholic Church does nothing to lead non- catholics to Jesus, after all they are all predestined to be damned. I cannot and will not believe in such a doctrine

What futility! That we have no free will after all but are just puppets in the hands of a vengefull God. No wonder the Catholic Church does nothing to lead non- catholics to Jesus, afterall they are all predestined to be damned. I cannot and will not believe in such a doctrine

Look in your History Book St.Augustine and Martin Luther were BISHOPS in the Roman Catholic Church. St. Augustine's acceptance of FREE WILL in his confessions was THE SAME AS GALILEO acceptance of THE UNIVERSE revolves around the EARTH,as we know both the RC church and he went back to the TRUTH,which they knew all the time.But GALILO had to wait until the RC Church was ready to admit the truth first. By the way I believe in the HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH even though I was brought up in the ANGLO CATHOLIC CHURCH . I Believe IN THE HOLY NICENE CREED (NOTE: NOT ROMAN,NOT ANGLICAN, NOT ORTHODOX ,BUT JUST THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH ,THE WAY IT WAS IN THE Beginning. MAYBE YOU SHOULD LOOK FOR THE TRUTH(HISTORY IS A GOOD PLACE TO START ) instead of waiting for organized religion to finally return to the TRUTH (SEE ABOVE)

look in your history book st.augustine and martin luther were bishops in the roman catholic church. St. Augustine's acceptance of free will in his confessions was the same as galileo acceptance of the universe revolves around the earth,as we know both the rc church and he went back to the truth,which they knew all the time.but galilo had to wait untill the rc church was ready to admit the truth first. By the way i beleive in the holy catholic church even though i was brought up in the anglo catholic church . I beleive in the holy nicene creed (note: Not roman,not anglican, not orthodox ,but just the holy catholic church ,the way it was in the begining. Maybe you should look for the truth(history is a good place to start ) instead of waiting for organized religion to finally return to the truth (see above)

You might also check holy scripture.if you believe that as I do

Look in your History Book

I don't need a history book to know the truth, I look to Jesus

Look in your History Book St.Augustine and Martin Luther were BISHOPS in the Roman Catholic Church. St. Augustine's acceptance of FREE WILL in his confessions was THE SAME AS GALILEO acceptance of THE UNIVERSE revolves around the EARTH,as we know both the RC church and he went back to the TRUTH,which they knew all the time.But GALILO had to wait untill the RC Church was ready to admit the truth first. By the way I beleive in the HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH even though I was brought up in the ANGLO CATHOLIC CHURCH . I BELEIVE IN THE HOLY NICENE CREED (NOTE: NOT ROMAN,NOT ANGLICAN, NOT ORTHODOX ,BUT JUST THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH ,THE WAY IT WAS IN THE BEGINING. MAYBE YOU SHOULD LOOK FOR THE TRUTH(HISTORY IS A GOOD PLACE TO START ) instead of waiting for organized religion to finally return to the TRUTH (SEE ABOVE)

I suggest you read St. Augustine more closely. He is thoroughly Catholic and believes in the Catholic doctrine of predestination.

In John 6:44 Jesus says" You can only come to me if you are drawn to me by my father" In early greek Bibles he said" You can only come to me if you are selected to come to me by my father" Earlier in John Jesus said"You can only go to the FATHER through me. Both of these passages would indicate some will not be drawn/selected by the Father to go to Jesus and therefore can not go to the Father(?) Take for instance someone who blasphemes THE HOLY SPIRIT or someone never introduced to Jesus(which does not hardly happen anymore). This would bear out Predestination according to Calvin, Martin Luther,and St. Augustine(in his final years)when he said Man lost his free will when Adam disobeyed God the FATHER and saddled us with "original sin"which overcomes our will.

You're mixing apples and oranges. The fact that some will disobey God is an affirmation of free will. It is because they freely chose to disobey
God that they were condemned.


Therefore my question is "Isn't only by GOD's GRACE THAT THOSE WHO ARE SAVED BY HIM and those who who ARE NOT GIVEN HIS GRACE ARE PREDESTINED TO BE DAMMED and there is nothing we can do or say that will earn HIS GRACE. THIS IS PREDESTINATION

It is by God's grace, but not by God's grace alone.

Scripture says:
Ephesians 2:8
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

You see, faith is the grace by which we are saved. By this I don't mean to insinuate faith ALONE. However, faith is a grace and it is a gift of God. And without faith we won't be saved.

But faith is a particular kind of grace which must be exercised. And faith is exercised in the will. Therefore we must will to exercise faith and when we do we combine with faith our cooperation which takes the form of works. And therefore Scripture says:
James 2:24
Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

You're mixing apples and oranges. The fact that some will disobey God is an affirmation of free will. It is because they freely chose to disobey
God that they were condemned.



It is by God's grace, but not by God's grace alone.

Scripture says:
Ephesians 2:8
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

You see, faith is the grace by which we are saved. By this I don't mean to insinuate faith ALONE. However, faith is a grace and it is a gift of God. And without faith we won't be saved.

But faith is a particular kind of grace which must be exercised. And faith is exercised in the will. Therefore we must will to exercise faith and when we do we combine with faith our cooperation which takes the form of works. And therefore Scripture says:
James 2:24
Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

You may be right But if faith is GOD's Gift then we can only have it if GOD gives it to us.We can only exercise it if GOD gives it to us. Therefore it is not of our will but of GOD'S Will.Therefore it also follows that only GOD has FREE WILL and our will is subservient to HIS WILL. From this it follows the only TRUE FREE WILL IS GOD'S WILL. The above also can be discerned by the following line of thought. The choices man makes are the product of his mind and makes up his will. His mind is created and given to him by GOD. Man's thinking is shaped by his environment which also comes from GOD.Therefore the way he thinks and acts comes from GOD. So again we come to the conclusion that man's will is subservient to GOD

You're mixing apples and oranges. The fact that some will disobey God is an affirmation of free will. It is because they freely chose to disobey
God that they were condemned.



It is by God's grace, but not by God's grace alone.

Scripture says:
Ephesians 2:8
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

You see, faith is the grace by which we are saved. By this I don't mean to insinuate faith ALONE. However, faith is a grace and it is a gift of God. And without faith we won't be saved.

But faith is a particular kind of grace which must be exercised. And faith is exercised in the will. Therefore we must will to exercise faith and when we do we combine with faith our cooperation which takes the form of works. And therefore Scripture says:
James 2:24
Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

If faith is grace , and grace is a gift of GOD which we can not earn by our own actions,then the works that justifies man must be an action caused by the brain of man. Seemy last answer to you. It then follows that not faith is a type of GOD'S GRACE but the good works he does are a product of the way he thinks . See my last answer to find out why man thinks the way he does.

I suggest you read St. Augustine more closely. He is thoroughly Catholic and believes in the Catholic doctrine of predestination.

Look at his writings in the latter part of his life. He said "man lost his free will by the fall of Adam" actually that because of the" original sin was so strong it overcomes man's free wll. Also look at what The council of orange's position on predestination . That was the official HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH'S position as of that date. Also look at my previous answer about why we should return to THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH as we profess to believe in the NICENE CREED. Let's get rid of any national adjective and return to the ONE TRUE CHURCH

Martin Luther [was a] BISHOP in the Roman Catholic Church
Please cite your source.

James 2:24
Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
James is talking about Abraham.

Some of James' hearers used the doctrine of justification by faith alone as an excuse to be complacent about living in an ungodly way. James wanted to shake them up a bit and so deliberately used paradox in this verse. He then used the example of Abraham as the test for genuine faith -- first faith (Gen. 15:6) and then works (Gen. 22). In James 2:18, James says, "Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works." He was referring to the genuineness of faith.

You may be right But if faith is GOD's Gift then we can only have it if GOD gives it to us.We can only exercise it if GOD gives it to us. Therefore it is not of our will but of GOD'S Will.Therefore it also follows that only GOD has FREE WILL and our will is subservient to HIS WILL. From this it follows the only TRUE FREE WILL IS GOD'S WILL. The above also can be discerned by the following line of thought. The choices man makes are the product of his mind and makes up his will. His mind is created and given to him by GOD. Man's thinking is shaped by his enviroment which also comes from GOD.Therefore the way he thinks and acts comes from GOD. So again we come to the conclusion that man's will is subservient to GOD


Hi Rebel,

What you have here seems to be an argument for fatalism rather than predestination.

Regards

Tut

Hi Rebel,

What you have here seems to be an argument for fatalism rather than predestination.

Regards

Tut

To me fatalism and predestination are the same in this case because they are both based on the WILL OF GOD.He is the only one who can give you grace and only HIS GRACE CAN SAVE YOU. HIS GRACE is given to you if HE WILLS IT

To me fatalism and predestination are the same in this case because they are both based on the WILL OF GOD.He is the only one who can give you grace and only HIS GRACE CAN SAVE YOU. HIS GRACE is given to you if HE WILLS IT


Hi Rebel,

No problem. I just thought I would point that out.

Regards

Tut

I don't need a history book to know the truth, I look to Jesus

FINE THEN USE THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. CAVIN DID AND WAS ONE OF THE GREAT MEN WHO INSPIRED ME TO THINK THE WAY I DO. Maybe they were wrong and maybe they wre right'think about it . The other two were Martin LUTHER AND ST.AGUSTINE BOTH OF WHOM WERE CATHOLIC BISHOPS

Please cite your source.

The history of europe and the history of the catholic church. See the nailing on the door of his objections to indulgences and more (if i remember right it was 96 in all)

Luther was a bishop

THE HISTORY OF EUROPE AND THE HISTORY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. SEE THE NAILING ON THE DOOR OF HIS OBJECTIONS TO INDULGENCES AND MORE (if I remember right it was 96 in all)
Well, Charlie, you are wrong -- totally incorrect. He wasn't a bishop, and there were only 95 theses. Don't mess with someone (me) who has been Lutheran since her first breath and who was born on his birthday (but in a different year).

Writing in caps is rude and indicates you are shouting. Are you?

James is talking about Abraham.

Correct.



Some of James' hearers used the doctrine of justification by faith alone

There is no such doctrine in the Bible.


as an excuse to be complacent about living in an ungodly way. James wanted to shake them up a bit and so deliberately used paradox in this verse. He then used the example of Abraham as the test for genuine faith -- first faith (Gen. 15:6) and then works (Gen. 22). In James 2:18, James says, "Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works." He was referring to the genuineness of faith.

Correct. Faith without works is dead and dead faith can't save:
James 2:14
What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? Can faith save him?

James 2:26
For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

You may be right But if faith is GOD's Gift then we can only have it if GOD gives it to us.We can only exercise it if GOD gives it to us. Therefore it is not of our will but of GOD'S Will.Therefore it also follows that only GOD has FREE WILL and our will is subservient to HIS WILL.

That doesn't follow because God gave us free will. This is proven in Scripture because He gave us a choice:
Deuteronomy 30:19
I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

God would not have given us a choice if He had not first given us free will to make that choice.


From this it follows the only TRUE FREE WILL IS GOD'S WILL. The above also can be discerned by the following line of thought. The choices man makes are the product of his mind and makes up his will. His mind is created and given to him by GOD. Man's thinking is shaped by his environment which also comes from GOD.Therefore the way he thinks and acts comes from GOD. So again we come to the conclusion that man's will is subservient to GOD

The correct conclusion is that man's will is SUPPOSED to be subservient to God's. But God has given man the freedom to uh, no pun intended, rebel. If men rebel against God, they become disobedient and will not be saved, but cast into the lake of fire.

... See my last answer to find out why man thinks the way he does.

Your last answer was a false conclusion drawn by false premises. See my response to that answer.

However, here you are coming to more false conclusions:


If faith is grace , and grace is a gift of GOD which we can not earn by our own actions,then the works that justifies man must be an action caused by the brain of man.

This is a non sequitur. The works that justify man are explained in Scripture in the Ten Commandments, and in the Corporal works of mercy (Matt 25 and James 1).


Seemy last answer to you.

Already did.


It then follows that not faith is a type of GOD'S GRACE

Scripture says so:
1 Corinthians 12:8-10 (King James Version)

8For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;

9To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;

10To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:

Ephesians 2:8
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:


but the good works he does are a product of the way he thinks .

Which if he is a Christian are a product of his faith in Christ.

Look at his writings in the latter part of his life. He said "man lost his free will by the fall of Adam" actually that because of the" original sin was so strong it overcomes man's free wll. Also look at what The council of orange's position on predestination . That was the official HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH'S position as of that date. Also look at my previous answer about why we should return to THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH as we profess to beleive in the NICENE CREED. Let's get rid of any national adjective and return to the ONE TRUE CHURCH

Provide the reference. I'm not familiar with that quote.
This is HIS title to chapter 3:
Chapter 3.— Sinners are Convicted When Attempting to Excuse Themselves by Blaming God, Because They Have Free Will.

CHURCH FATHERS: On Grace and Free Will (St. Augustine) (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1510.htm)

There is no such doctrine in the Bible.
Of course there isn't. James' audience invented it out of whole cloth so they wouldn't have to do any works (as thank yous to God), and were a bunch of whiners.

Of course there isn't. James' audience invented it out of whole cloth so they wouldn't have to do any works (as thank yous to God),

On the contrary, St. James is telling them that works are necessary in order to be justified.


and were a bunch of whiners.

Let me understand, you don't believe in salvation by faith alone. But you believe in justification by faith alone?

Well, Charlie, you are wrong -- totally incorrect. He wasn't a bishop, and there were only 95 theses. Don't mess with someone (me) who has been Lutheran since her first breath and who was born on his birthday (but in a different year).

Writing in caps is rude and indicates you are shouting. Are you?

NO! My name is not Charlie. I stand corrected on the 95. But you must admit I was close. He may not of been a Bishop in the Lutheran Church but HE WAS A BISHOP IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH before the PROTEST. Check that out in a history book and also in his Bio.

On the contrary, St. James is telling them that works are necessary in order to be justified.
No, he isn't. He's using the literary device of paradox.

Let me understand, you don't believe in salvation by faith alone. But you believe in justification by faith alone?
And the difference between them is?

HE WAS A BISHOP IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH before the PROTEST. Check that out in a history book and also in his Bio.
No, he wasn't. Please cite at least one source.

I suggest you read St. Augustine more closely. He is thoroughly Catholic and believes in the Catholic doctrine of predestination.

Yes he was thoroughy Catholic and wrote in his Confessions the Church's doctrine was right but as I have pointed out that was like Gallieo's rejection of the theory "the earth revovles around the sun" The Church had great power over everyone and could force them to issue any denial of any truth. St.Augustine ended up believing THAT MAN HAD BEEN GIVEN FREE WILL but lost it when Adam ate from the TREE OF KNOWLEDGE. He lost it because he disobeyd GOD.Could this of been because the knowledge Adam gained might allow he to disagree with GOD? And possibly make a good argument as to what actions he should undertake?Read the historical bio's of St. Augustine. Please believe your answers may be the true ones and mine may be the true ones,but I don't we will find in our life time and maybe never.

You're mixing apples and oranges. The fact that some will disobey God is an affirmation of free will. It is because they freely chose to disobey
God that they were condemned.



It is by God's grace, but not by God's grace alone.

Scripture says:
Ephesians 2:8
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

You see, faith is the grace by which we are saved. By this I don't mean to insinuate faith ALONE. However, faith is a grace and it is a gift of God. And without faith we won't be saved.

But faith is a particular kind of grace which must be exercised. And faith is exercised in the will. Therefore we must will to exercise faith and when we do we combine with faith our cooperation which takes the form of works. And therefore Scripture says:
James 2:24
Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

No he is saved by faith and any of GOD'S Graces. It is GOD'S CHOICE not ours of which graces HE gives us . It is also HIS choice on how we act because HE controls our environment that develops our brain. So you see man makes his choices completely directed by GOD

No, he isn't. He's using the literary device of paradox.

I don't know what leads you to that conclusion. He says:
James 2
24Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.



And the difference between them is?

Between salvation and justification?

Justification is the cleansing of the soul making us right with God in this life and it leads to salvation if we persevere in that state of being.

Salvation is final perseverance in a state of grace maintained by faith and good works to eternal life in heaven.

Ok, well let me ask you this, are we required to work in thanksgiving to God after He justifies us by faith alone?

Yes he was thoroughy Catholic and wrote in his Confessions the Church's doctrine was right but as I have pointed out that was like Gallieo's rejection of the theory "the earth revovles around the sun" The Church had great power over everyone and could force them to issue any denial of any truth. St.Augustine ended up beleiving THAT MAN HAD BEEN GIVEN FREE WILL but lost it when Adam ate from the TREE OF KNOWLEDGE. He lost it because he disobeyd GOD.Could this of been because the knowledge Adam gained might allow he to disagree with GOD? And possibly make a good arguement as to what actions he should undertake?Read the historical bio's of St. Augustine. Please beleive your answers may be the true ones and mine may be the true ones,but I don't we will find in our life time and maybe never.

Ok, I guess we agree to disagree. Thanks.

No he is saved by faith and any of GOD'S Graces. It is GOD'S CHOICE not ours of which graces HE gives us . It is also HIS choice on how we act because HE controls our enviroment that develops our brain. So you see man makes his choices completly directed by GOD

But faith without works, is dead.
James 2:
20But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

He's using the literary device of paradox.

I don't know what leads you to that conclusion.
The same questioning mind that causes me to examine why the Psalmist says in Ps. 98:8 that the floods clap their hands.

Ok, well let me ask you this, are we required to work in thanksgiving to God after He justifies us by faith alone?
Grace is free. We do good works as our thanks to God for His love and mercy.

The same questioning mind that causes me to examine why the Psalmist says in Ps. 98:8 that the floods clap their hands.

I don't see any mention of floods in James 2. Nor any inanimate objects clapping their hands.


Grace is free. We do good works as our thanks to God for His love and mercy.

What would happen if we did not give thanks to God for His love and mercy?

I don't see any mention of floods in James 2. Nor any inanimate objects clapping their hands.
Apparently you didn't read what I had said about the floods.

What would happen if we did not give thanks to God for His love and mercy?
Are you with me that grace is free, and we don't have to do any work for it to earn it?

Apparently you didn't read what I had said about the floods.

Are you with me that grace is free, and we don't have to do any work for it to earn it?

Yes. That's Catholic Teaching. But it is also Catholic Teaching that we won't receive the grace of salvation if we don't obey Christ.

So, What would happen if we did not give thanks to God for His love and mercy?

Yes. That's Catholic Teaching. But it is also Catholic Teaching that we won't receive the grace of salvation if we don't obey Christ.
Before I answer, I'd like an explanation of what "obey Christ" means.

Before I answer, I'd like an explanation of what "obey Christ" means.

To obey Christ means to keep the Commandments of God:
John 14:21
He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

To obey Christ means to keep the Commandments of God:
John 14:21
He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.
And if I do that, my reward will be what?

And if I do that, my reward will be what?

God will manifest Himself to you. In other words, salvation.

Enjoyed the dance, Wondergirl. But I've got an early day tomorrow.

Goodnight.

God will manifest Himself to you. In other words, salvation.
He doesn't need that prompt. He makes the salvation available without it.

Before I answer, I'd like an explanation of what "obey Christ" means.

It means obey The Trinity's WILL (GOD) and if HE deems to give you HIS graces you will be saved otherwise you won't be saved

It means obey The Trinity's WILL (GOD) and if HE deems to give you HIS graces you will be saved otherwise you won't be saved
What a fickle, even mean, guy!

What a fickle, even mean, guy!

Me or the Trinity?

me or the Trinity?
The deeming one.

He doesn't need that prompt. He makes the salvation available without it.

He makes it available but He doesn't give it out unless you first have faith and make an effort to find Him.

Otherwise, even unrepentant sinners would be saved.

He makes it available but He doesn't give it out unless you first have faith and make an effort to find Him.
That's not human effort; that's the Holy Spirit at work.

Otherwise, even unrepentant sinners would be saved.
If they are unrepentant, they are saying "no, thanks."

That's not human effort; that's the Holy Spirit at work.

Aha! I think we're getting somewhere!

That's the Holy Spirit working where?


If they are unrepentant, they are saying "no, thanks."

And what does it mean to repent?

Aha! I think we're getting somewhere!

That's the Holy Spirit working where?



And what does it mean to repent?

To repent means to say and mean it "I am truly sorry for committing the sins I have committed. As Adam said when he broke GOD's LAW. But even though he confessed and repented GOD removed HIS GRACE and condemned to death and since all of man to the original sin. Of course Jesus's (who existed before Adam)sacrifice would have been unnecessary.Could this all done to justify GOD's WILL that Jesus was necessary? Remember GOD has HIS LAWS (the WILL that HE tells us) and HIS Ordained Will(HIS SECRET WILL) see Answer to Job by C.G. Jung in the 1950's. Not that I am saying that this is what happened but I do believe it is an intresting possibility? There are many more intresting theories in that book. Some of which I believe are possible and some of which I have serious doubts about. But the book is very worth reading

What a fickle, even mean, guy!

ASKED who was this guy me or the TRINITY and you answered "the deeming one" I can't believe you meant the TRINITY by the deemed one . PLEASE TELL ME that I misunderstood your answer and you were referring to me by that expression See 43-44\45

The deeming one.

THIS is your answer I am questioning . Surely you can't mean THE TRINITY when you answered "the fickle and even mean guy. I pray not

What a fickle, even mean, guy!

This is what I refer to when I asked if you meant me or THE TRINITY and your answer was the deeming one

This is what I refer to when I asked if you ment me or THE TRINITY and your answer was the deeming one
Relax. I meant God, and I was being sarcastic. I can't believe you took that comment literally.

Relax. I meant God, and I was being sarcastic. I can't believe you took that comment literally.

Thank GOD! For that. But you have to be careful HE might not take it that way

Thank GOD! for that. But you have to be carefull HE might not take it that way
God knows me very well.

Wondergirl?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl View Post
That's not human effort; that's the Holy Spirit at work.
Aha! I think we're getting somewhere!

That's the Holy Spirit working where?


Quote:
If they are unrepentant, they are saying "no, thanks."
And what does it mean to repent?

To repent means to say and mean it "I am truely sorry for commiting the sins I have commited. As Adam said when he broke GOD's LAW. But eventhough he confessed and repented GOD removed HIS GRACE and condemned to death and since all of man to the original sin. Ofcourse Jesus's (who existed before Adam)sacrifice would have been unnecessary.Could this all done to justify GOD's WILL that Jesus was necessary? Remember GOD has HIS LAWS (the WILL that HE tells us) and HIS Ordained Will(HIS SECRET WILL) see Answer to Job by C.G. Jung in the 1950's. Not that I am saying that this is what happend but I do beleive it is an intresting possibility? There are many more intresting theories in that book. Some of which I beleive are possible and some of which I have serious doubts about. But the book is very worth reading

Huh? That seems a very different version of the account of which I'm aware. Could you quote the Scripture from which you are getting this interpretation?

Huh? That seems a very different version of the account of which I'm aware. Could you quote the Scripture from which you are getting this interpretation?

That is not from Scripture but from Jung's interpetation of what is in scripture.Get his "Answer to Job" and I believe you will find it intresting . You won't agree with much of it but it may give you a different perspective on it. I was watching a program on the History Channel about GOD and the devil which claimed that all good comes from GOD and all evil comes from the fallen angel in the Jewish Bible,but in JOB it says that the devil couldn't do evil against Job without permission from GOD and GOD gave the OK for the evils to be done. In other words HE allowed the evil to be done to HIS LOYAL SERVANT to prove JOB would not turn against HIM. This to show the loyality of JOB to HIM,but shouldn't of GOD rewarded Job's loyality to HIM by saying to thr devil NO!which would have been a good way to return Job's loyality? You see there are many ways to interpret Scripture.

You see there are many ways to interpet Scripture.
One must take into account the purpose of a book such as Job and why it was written, if literary devices are used and why, if the characters are invented or real (and if it matters).

That is not from Scripture but from Jung's interpetation of what is in scripture.Get his "Answer to Job" and I believe you will find it intresting . You won't agree with much of it but it may give you a different perspective on it. I was watching a program on the History Channel about GOD and the devil which claimed that all good comes from GOD and all evil comes from the fallen angel in the Jewish Bible,but in JOB it says that the devil couldn't do evil against Job without permission from GOD and GOD gave the OK for the evils to be done. In other words HE allowed the evil to be done to HIS LOYAL SERVANT to prove JOB would not turn against HIM. This to show the loyality of JOB to HIM,but shouldn't of GOD rewarded Job's loyality to HIM by saying to thr devil NO!which would of been a good way to return Job's loyality? You see there are many ways to interpet Scripture.

But only one way that leads to truth. And that is by the tradition of the Catholic Church.

One must take into account the purpose of a book such as Job and why it was written, if literary devices are used and why, if the characters are invented or real (and if it matters).

Good points!

Wondergirl?

Quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl View Post
That's not human effort; that's the Holy Spirit at work.
Aha! I think we're getting somewhere!

That's the Holy Spirit working where?

Quote:

Quote:
If they are unrepentant, they are saying "no, thanks."
And what does it mean to repent?

I don't want you to lose track of this question.
__________________

But only one way that leads to truth. And that is by the tradition of the Catholic Church.
Truth cannot be found outside of the Catholic Church?

Truth cannot be found outside of the Catholic Church?

Did I say that? Please read my comment again.

And what does it mean to repent?
God comes to me where I am and works new affections in my soul. Thus, repentance is not something that I do as a work; both repentance and faith are the result of the new birth in Christ applied to me by the Holy Spirit. "We love Him because He first loved us" (I John 4:19).

But only one way that leads to truth. And that is by the tradition of the Catholic Church.

Truth cannot be found outside of the Catholic Church?

Did I say that? Please read my comment again.
You said, "But only one way that leads to truth. And that is by the tradition of the Catholic Church."

Sounds to me like you said that.

You said, "But only one way that leads to truth. And that is by the tradition of the Catholic Church."

In response to a question about interpretation of Scripture. The only way to be sure you are interpreting Scripture correctly is to make sure it is according to Church Tradition. That is in the Catechism.


Sounds to me like you said that.

There are many truths all over the world. And it is true that I'm up past my bedtime. Buenas noches maravilla

In response to a question about interpretation of Scripture. The only way to be sure you are interpreting Scripture correctly is to make sure it is according to Church Tradition. That is in the Catechism.
There's no other way to interpret Scripture correctly?

What if one is not Catholic and interprets Scripture?

Truth cannot be found outside of the Catholic Church?

But which Catholic Church? The Anglican,The Orthodox{which one],The Roman,or The Holy Catholic Church of The Nicene Creed. I vote for the last one ,but unfourtunly THAT ONE IS NOT STILL ACTIVE.

One must take into account the purpose of a book such as Job and why it was written, if literary devices are used and why, if the characters are invented or real (and if it matters).

It was probably written to show the what the relationship between good men and GOD should be. I doubt if it was one man ,but was one man used as a symbol of mankind. But it does show that no one can do evil,not even the devil,without getting the permission from GOD first!

But which Catholic Church? The Anglican,The Orthodox{which one],The Roman,or The Holy Catholic Church of The Nicene Creed. I vote for the last one ,but unfourtunly THAT ONE IS NOT STILL ACTIVE.

There is only one. And yes, it is still here. Otherwise you are calling Jesus a liar when He said:
Matthew 16:18
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

It was probaly written to show the what the relationship between good men and GOD should be. I doubt if it was one man ,but was one man used as a symbol of mankind. But it does show that no one can do evil,not even the devil,without getting the permission from GOD first!

Read it again. The devil was asking permission to test one around whom God had established a hedge.

Someone of that calibre is like a St. Catherine Sienna, St. Francis Assissi, St. Dominic or other higher order Saint of the Catholic Church who is already experiencing heaven right here on earth.

The rest of us are still fair game.

Read it again. The devil was asking permission to test one around whom God had established a hedge.

Someone of that calibre is like a St. Catherine Sienna, St. Francis Assissi, St. Dominic or other higher order Saint of the Catholic Church who is already experiencing heaven right here on earth.

The rest of us are still fair game.

Yes we all are fair game if GOD gives anyone the permission to do evil to us ,otherwise we are protected from evil by GOD saying no or putting limits on to what extent that evil extend. Just as Christ named Peter as the Rock which HE woulld build HIS church on,but put limitations on Peter . Read on in that passage,"Get thyself behind ME satan" when Peter started to speak as to what GOD should do and HE told Peter he could only speak for man. As to your entry about there being only One Catholic Church, All of those Catholic Churches had Bishops at the Nicene Council including the Bishop of Rome and they all submitted to the authority of Council . The authority of the Council came from Constantine ,who appointed the head of it.Therefore the Head of the Catholic Church was the One that all branches of THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH submitted including the roman Catholic Church,which still says and believes in the Nicene Creed. There has been many other problems in the line of the Popes, but I would have no problem in accepting him as the head of THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURH if all of the many forms of the catholic church would accept him as such. The biggest block to this is "infallibility". As noted in the passage in the bible "Peter is the rock ,Chirist said Peter had made a mistake in regards in faith,morals,and dogma.How many of the learned bishops were excommunicated in the 1800's when they couldn't accept that doctrine? The r/c church said history showed it to be,but no one could come up with the historical references showing that idea being accepted in history. Will you please quote,or ask your father ,and get back to me with the historical basis for that "belief". I would really appreciate that. Thank you in advance.

yes we all are fair game if GOD gives anyone the permission to do evil to us ,otherwise we are protected from evil by GOD saying no or putting limits on to what extent that evil extend. Just as Christ named Peter as the Rock which HE woulld build HIS church on,but put limitations on Peter . Read on in that passage,"Get thyself behind ME satan" when Peter started to speak as to what GOD should do and HE told Peter he could only speak for man. As to your entry about there being only One Catholic Church, All of those Catholic Churches had Bishops at the Nicene Coucil including the Bishop of Rome and they all submitted to the authority of Council . The authority of the Council came from Constantine ,who appointed the head of it.Therefore the Head of the Catholic Church was the One that all branches of THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH submitted including the roman Catholic Church,which still says and belives in the Nicene Creed. There has been many other problems in the line of the Popes, but I would have no problem in accepting him as the head of THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURH if all of the many forms of the catholic church would accept him as such. The biggest block to this is "infallibility". As noted in the passage in the bible "Peter is the rock ,Chirist said Peter had made a mistake in regards in faith,morals,and dogma.How many of the learned bishops were excommunicated in the 1800's when they couldn't accept that doctrine? The r/c church said history showed it to be,but no one could come up with the historical references showing that idea being accepted in history. Will you please quote,or ask your father ,and get back to me with the historical basis for that "belief". I would realy appreciate that. Thank you in advance.

Although ST. Constantine (a Saint of the Eastern Church) was very active in bringing the Council together, the Council was under the authority of the Pope.

... As noted in the passage in the bible "Peter is the rock ,Chirist said Peter had made a mistake in regards in faith,morals,and dogma.

But Christ was still with Peter. Read a bit more:
Luke 22:30-32 (King James Version)

30That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

31And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:

32But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.

And also:
John 21:17
He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

And also:
John 14:26
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Therefore, the charism of infallibility was given to Peter after Jesus ascended into heaven.


How many of the learned bishops were excommunicated in the 1800's when they couldn't accept that doctrine? The r/c church said history showed it to be,but no one could come up with the historical references showing that idea being accepted in history.

I don't know why not, we still have them today.


Will you please quote,or ask your father ,and get back to me with the historical basis for that "belief". I would really appreciate that. Thank you in advance.

Sure:
Testimony of the Early Church Fathers

Pope Clement I: "Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us… Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret… If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [God] through us [that you must reinstate your leaders], let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger… You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy…" (Letter to the Corinthians 1:1, 58:2-59:1,63:2[A.D.80]).

Ignatius of Antioch: "… to the Church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and after the Father" (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).

Cyprian of Carthage: "Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?"

Cyprian of Carthage: "the Lord says to Peter; ’I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of Heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt 16:18-19])…On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [i.e. apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).
Papal Infallibility (http://www.catholicfaithandreason.org/papal_infallibility.htm)

There is only one. And yes, it is still here. Otherwise you are calling Jesus a liar when He said:
Matthew 16:18
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Why didn't Jesus say, "upon thee I will build my church" and point explicitly to Peter?

As the verse stands, "upon this rock I will build my church," Jesus is referring to Himself as "this rock."

Therefore, the charism of infallibility was given to Peter after Jesus ascended into heaven.
Huh? In that passage (Luke 22:30-32 and in the verses from John), Peter was simply being charged with the responsibility of becoming a missionary for Christ.

Why didn't Jesus say, "upon thee I will build my church" and point explicitly to Peter?

As the verse stands, "upon this rock I will build my church," Jesus is referring to Himself as "this rock."

Jesus was speaking Aramaic and He made a play on words.

Remember that in Aramaic, Peter is Cephas or rock.

So, Jesus didn't say, "you are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church."

He said, "you are Cephas and upon this cephas I will build my Church."

The play on words is perfectly clear. And the fact that the subject and object of that verse is one and the same, Simon, the one whom Jesus was singling out and rewarding for his statement of faith.

Huh? In that passage (Luke 22:30-32 and in the verses from John), Peter was simply being charged with the responsibility of becoming a missionary for Christ.

But only Simon was charged with the responsibility of being the Rock on whom the Church would rest and of being the Shepherd over Christ's sheep.

Jesus was speaking Aramaic and He made a play on words.

Remember that in Aramaic, Peter is Cephas or rock.

So, Jesus didn't say, "you are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church."

He said, "you are Cephas and upon this cephas I will build my Church."

The play on words is perfectly clear. And the fact that the subject and object of that verse is one and the same, Simon, the one whom Jesus was singling out and rewarding for his statement of faith.

Wrong again, de. If he was speaking Aramaic then there is no play on words. It's nothing but a repeated word, and that's not a play on words. The pun only works in Greek, which is clearly the language Jesus was speaking here, and there are two different Greek words used. He said "you are peter," a word meaning "a small stone," and "upon this rock," a word meaning "huge boulder." If you actually knew anything about the language in question you'd realize that there is indeed a play on words here, but it goes in the opposite direction that you claim. Jesus said, "you're a rock, all right, but I'll build my church on a much bigger rock, i.e. myself."

The play on words is there, but it explicitly says that Peter is NOT the "rock" that the church is built on.

Although ST. Constantine (a Saint of the Eastern Church) was very active in bringing the Council together, the Council was under the authority of the Pope.

You have to read history instead of the biassed position of the r/c church.ST Constantine was also the authority who gave Christ the 12/25 birthday. He made it that date so as to have it at the same time as the sun god. He did this so worshippers of the sun god could switch over easialy. Also when Constantine took power Christians were still being sent to the lions in Rome. He stopped that. Why did the pope not take authority over the Nicene Council instead of just sending 2 representatives just as all the other branches of the church and also submitted to all of their decisions? Constantine didn't convert until his death but he was very influential in saving the Christians and their religon.

Of course this is only a concern if you are a Christian and believe Christ as your saviour to be the only way. The bible is the point of reference from a Christian perspective.

If you were born and raised by a family living in India, Iran, or Japan, for example, odds are you wouldn't give this a second thought because it would not be part of your belief system. The vast majority of people grow up believing what they do because of where they were born and/or what their family may have practiced and believed. There are exceptions to be sure, but they are in the minority.

So are all others doomed?
Could you be persuaded to convert to Islam, Buddism, or any other religion? They obviously feel their beliefs are the "correct" point of view and would no more likely convert to Christianity than most Christians would convert elsewhere. After all, it is perfectly natural to hold fast to what you were raised to believe and understand.

Or could it be that God, in a greater wisdom, is present in some form throughout all religions and there is no one way that trumps the others... simply different paths?

Just throwing that out there... thoughts?? :)

Of course this is only a concern if you are a Christian and believe Christ as your saviour to be the only way. The bible is the point of reference from a Christian perspective.

If you were born and raised by a family living in India, Iran, or Japan, for example, odds are you wouldn't give this a second thought because it would not be part of your belief system. The vast majority of people grow up believing what they do because of where they were born and/or what their family may have practiced and believed. There are exceptions to be sure, but they are in the minority.

So are all others doomed?
Could you be persuaded to convert to Islam, Buddism, or any other religion? They obviously feel their beliefs are the "correct" point of view and would no more likely convert to Christianity than most Christians would convert elsewhere. After all, it is perfectly natural to hold fast to what you were raised to believe and understand.

Or could it be that God, in a greater wisdom, is present in some form throughout all religions and there is no one way that trumps the others....simply different paths?

Just throwing that out there...thoughts??? :)

GOD has manifested GOD(we do not really know what form(s) GOD takes or how manifastations HE has taken. They are all valid and probably all correct. I personaly like The Great Spirit of the Indian nations but I believe in The Holy Catholic Church of the Nicene era

GOD has manifested GOD(we do not really know what form(s) GOD takes or how manifastations HE has taken. They are all valid and probably all correct. I personaly like The Great Spirit of the Indian nations but I believe in The Holy Catholic Church of the Nicene era

If you go back over this question, you will find many different answers in only the Christian religon alone. Think of all the different ways there are in the others. I believe only THE HOLY SPIRIT IS THE TRUTH.

Or could it be that God, in a greater wisdom, is present in some form throughout all religions and there is no one way that trumps the others....simply different paths?
When I was a child growing up in a Missouri Synod (very conservative) Lutheran home, I believed that only Missouri Synod Lutherans would be in heaven.

When I got a bit older, I decided Lutherans from other synods would be in heaven.

In college, after taking some theology courses, I decided to allow Protestants in general and also Catholics into heaven.

When I hit middle age, it seemed okay to allow members of the other two monotheistic religions into heaven. (I worked with a Muslim girl and Jewish woman, and they were both very godly people.)

Now I'm retired, and throughout my library career have worked with and dealt with many people with all sorts of beliefs about the nature of God and people who are not sure and people with no belief.

What used to be so simple to me as a child is now a huge puzzle. I do believe God comes to us where we are, Doula, and the afterlife is a very big place.

You have to read history instead of the biassed position of the r/c church.ST Constantine was also the authority who gave Christ the 12/25 birthday. He made it that date so as to have it at the same time as the sun god. He did this so worshippers of the sun god could switch over easialy. Also when Constantine took power Christians were still being sent to the lions in Rome. He stopped that. Why did the pope not take authority over the Nicene Council instead of just sending 2 representatives just as all the other branches of the church and also submitted to all of thier decisons? Constantine didn't convert untill his death but he was very influencial in saving the Christians and thier religon.

You need to read the so called "biased" position of the Church in order to eliminate from your thinking the biases of those who hate the Church.

The date of 12/25 is from the Bible. YES. From the Bible. From the Old Testament at that. And from the knowledge of Jewish doctrine.

Count back 9 months from December. That gives you March 25. Count forward seven days. That gives you April 1. The first day of the year in the Jewish Calendar.

What is significant about March 25. It is the first day of Creation. And Jesus birth was considered the first day of the New Creation.

I hope that helps.

Of course this is only a concern if you are a Christian and believe Christ as your saviour to be the only way. The bible is the point of reference from a Christian perspective.

Only since the advent of Luther. Prior to Luther, Christians understood that Jesus did not write even one word of the Bible. But that Jesus established a Church and commanded that Church to teach His Traditions.


If you were born and raised by a family living in India, Iran, or Japan, for example, odds are you wouldn't give this a second thought because it would not be part of your belief system. The vast majority of people grow up believing what they do because of where they were born and/or what their family may have practiced and believed. There are exceptions to be sure, but they are in the minority.

So are all others doomed?
Could you be persuaded to convert to Islam, Buddism, or any other religion? They obviously feel their beliefs are the "correct" point of view and would no more likely convert to Christianity than most Christians would convert elsewhere. After all, it is perfectly natural to hold fast to what you were raised to believe and understand.

And yet many have converted to Christianity. Why? Because they recognize the superiority of the wisdom of Christ.


Or could it be that God, in a greater wisdom, is present in some form throughout all religions and there is no one way that trumps the others... simply different paths?

Just throwing that out there... thoughts?? :)

God has revealed to humanity the way which trumps all others. It is up to us to embrace that way.

When I was a child growing up in a Missouri Synod (very conservative) Lutheran home, I believed that only Missouri Synod Lutherans would be in heaven.

When I got a bit older, I decided Lutherans from other synods would be in heaven.

In college, after taking some theology courses, I decided to allow Protestants in general and also Catholics into heaven.

When I hit middle age, it seemed okay to allow members of the other two monotheistic religions into heaven. (I worked with a Muslim girl and Jewish woman, and they were both very godly people.)

Now I'm retired, and throughout my library career have worked with and dealt with many people with all sorts of beliefs about the nature of God and people who are not sure and people with no belief.

What used to be so simple to me as a child is now a huge puzzle. I do believe God comes to us where we are, Doula, and the afterlife is a very big place.

No doubt, but I don't judge before time. And God gave us a commandment to teach all His doctrines. So, whether they will be in heaven or not is not my job to decide. He is the just Judge.

Whether I am to teach those will listen, that is my job. It is our job. Otherwise, we may also be lost.

No doubt, but I don't judge before time.
Neither did I.

Neither did I.

We agree? :eek: ;)

We agree?! :eek: ;)
You weren't kicking me?

You weren't kicking me?

Moi?

Only since the advent of Luther. Prior to Luther, Christians understood that Jesus did not write even one word of the Bible. But that Jesus established a Church and commanded that Church to teach His Traditions.



And yet many have converted to Christianity. Why? Because they recognize the superiority of the wisdom of Christ.



God has revealed to humanity the way which trumps all others. It is up to us to embrace that way.

But again this comes from a Christian prospective. Many have also converted to other religions... why? Because they too felt another religion to be superior in their understanding. It is no different.

Many, in years past, had little choice but to convert to Christianity... as was the same for many religions who wanted or needed to obtain valuable acquisitions and grow their flocks.

The vast majority of people do not seek out to fully learn about other religions and will follow what they were raised to believe. For them there is no reason to learn more than perhaps the fundamentals as they obviously believe their own beliefs to be justified and proven over time.

What Christians believe to be the ultimate trump card is not what others believe... and that would be understandable and expected, otherwise they wouldn't be Christians... :)

But again this comes from a Christian prospective. Many have also converted to other religions... why? Because they too felt another religion to be superior in their understanding. It is no different.

Many, in years past, had little choice but to convert to Christianity... as was the same for many religions who wanted or needed to obtain valuable acquisitions and grow their flocks.

The vast majority of people do not seek out to fully learn about other religions

That is the reason for the Great Commission.


and will follow what they were raised to believe. For them there is no reason to learn more than perhaps the fundamentals as they obviously believe their own beliefs to be justified and proven over time.

From my own experience and many whom I've spoken to over the years, there seems to come a time when people question the validity of what they've learned. Yes, even Catholics.


What Christians believe to be the ultimate trump card is not what others believe... and that would be understandable and expected, otherwise they wouldn't be Christians... :)

True. But are you arguing that because some people have not been exposed to the trump card, they should never be exposed to said trump card?

You don't seem to be arguing that all religions are equal. But I'll ask, are you?

You don't seem to be arguing that all religions are equal. But I'll ask, are you?
Is there a contest going on?

Not really arguing a point at all, and my apologies to the OP for the hijack.

Only point I am trying to make is that for the vast majority of people, their beliefs are based on where they happened to be born in this world, and what the prevailing religion was in that country and/or their homes as they were raised which is evident as you find religious majorities around the world.

I don't believe anyone would change my way of thinking in my own beliefs anymore than I would presume to try and change someone else's if they felt steadfast in what they believed to be true. My own husband is a case in point... we have vastly different beliefs due to how we were raised, personal experiences, and what makes sense to us. Those are the ways people come into a religion.

Sharing what you have learned and believe is one thing, and sharing that information with those who want to know more is great, certainly nothing wrong with it... most religions encourage it. Refusing to understand that others will not believe the same and will holdfast to their beliefs just as strongly as you might, and/or suggesting they are "doomed" because they believe differently is another. (you in a general sense)

I am quite sure that if I were to have been born in another country, within another family, and raised to believe differently from the circumstances I happened to be born into, my beliefs would probably be very different than they are. It only stands to reason.

I think God is more likely to be inclusive than exclusive given the various beliefs that people around the world hold and knowing what is in people's hearts. It is man that takes issue with differences, as is done in every other area in life.

I think God would have a better understanding.

Same destiny, simply different paths in the journey.

Is there a contest going on?

I wasn't aware of one. Just a discussion. Does argument necessarily mean contest or debate?

I have bolded the meaning I intended from my use of the word.

Definitions of argument on the Web:

* a fact or assertion offered as evidence that something is true; "it was a strong argument that his hypothesis was true"
* controversy: a contentious speech act; a dispute where there is strong disagreement; "they were involved in a violent argument"
* a discussion in which reasons are advanced for and against some proposition or proposal; "the argument over foreign aid goes on and on"
* a summary of the subject or plot of a literary work or play or movie; "the editor added the argument to the poem"
* (computer science) a reference or value that is passed to a function, procedure, subroutine, command, or program
* a variable in a logical or mathematical expression whose value determines the dependent variable; if f(x)=y, x is the independent variable
* argumentation: a course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating a truth or falsehood; the methodical process of logical reasoning; "I can't follow your line of reasoning"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Not really arguing a point at all,....

Judging from your opening sentence and Wondergirl's response, my input must be making you uncomfortable. Sorry about that.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Judging from your opening sentence and Wondergirl's response, my input must be making you uncomfortable.
Neither of us is uncomfortable -- at least I'm not.

Doula makes several good points. We should start a new thread.

Judging from your opening sentence and Wondergirl's response, my input must be making you uncomfortable. Sorry about that.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Nope... not uncomfortable at all... just discussing various points of view... :)

Nope...not uncomfortable at all.....just discussing various points of view...:)
May I copy and paste some of your words to start a new thread, so we aren't hijacking this one -- or are we on target enough here?

Actually I suppose we are still on target since the orignial post was questioning how one might or might not receive God's grace. (Also providing an example of variations in translation and interpretation.)

The questioning just went further to wonder about the thoughts of others as to the paths taken by those who were not raised in a Christian denomination.

You need to read the so called "biased" position of the Church in order to eliminate from your thinking the biases of those who hate the Church.

The date of 12/25 is from the Bible. YES. From the Bible. From the Old Testament at that. And from the knowledge of Jewish doctrine.

Count back 9 months from December. That gives you March 25. Count forward seven days. That gives you April 1. The first day of the year in the Jewish Calendar.

What is significant about March 25. It is the first day of Creation. And Jesus birth was considered the first day of the New Creation.

I hope that helps.

Not only isn't the day of HIS birth not mentioned but many other dates could be devised to get to them as the date. Starting with the historical events mentioned in the bible took place before,look up the death of Herold (3-4 BC) so not only don't we know the day we don't even know the year. Problely somewhere between 7BC till 6AD . So you see the bible was not in sinc with history

Not only isn't the day of HIS birth not mentioned but many other dates could be devised to get to them as the date. Starting with the historical events mentioned in the bible took place before,look up the death of Herold (3-4 BC) so not only don't we know the day we don't even know the year. Problely somewhere between 7BC till 6AD . So you see the bible was not in sinc with history

Also why did Mary & Joseph take such a hard trip while she was carrying Jesus? If you check the history books no such census was held at that time. I submit my answer ,that it was Constantine ,who came up with that date was correct.

Actually I suppose we are still on target since the orignial post was questioning how one might or might not receive God's grace. (Also providing an example of variations in translation and interpretation.)

The questioning just went further to wonder about the thoughts of others as to the paths taken by those who were not raised in a Christian denomination.

We probably will go much further since there is so much difference in thought between Christians,Catholics,Chaple people .etc. Wait until some non Christians come into it. We can on forever or change the original question and go on forever IT WON'T ever come to a conclusion until the HOLEY SPIRIT gives us the answer

Not only isn't the day of HIS birth not mentioned but many other dates could be devised to get to them as the date. Starting with the historical events mentioned in the bible took place before,look up the death of Herold (3-4 BC)

Which Herod? There were several of them.


so not only don't we know the day we don't even know the year.

I didn't say that we knew the day. I explained why the date was set at Dec 25. You said it was because of Pagan influence. And I explained it is because the first day of Creation has been March 25 ever since Moses established the date for the first Passover.


Problely somewhere between 7BC till 6AD . So you see the bible was not in sinc with history

The Bible is perfectly in sync with history. Human knowledge is just catching up to the Bible and is proving the Bible true.

God sent his only son.. Jesus to be the messiah. Jesus died on the cross when he was thirty three years old.

He arose and the plan of salvation
Came to be. You must be born again and to do that you have to be drawn by the spirit.

The Lord will trouble your heart and you will know it's him. You have a choice accept him as your personal Saviour or not.

Also why did Mary & Joseph take such a hard trip while she was carrying Jesus? If you check the history books no such census was held at that time.

Yes. There was a census.

The first option is defended by Ernest Martin in CKC:90:

" A Latin inscription found in 1764 about one-half mile south of the ancient villa of Quintilius Varus (at Tivoli, 20 miles east of Rome) states that the subject of the inscription had twice been governor of Syria. This can only refer to Quintilius Varus, who was Syrian governor at two different times. Numismatic evidence shows he ruled Syria from 6 to 4 B.C., and other historical evidence indicates that Varus was again governor from 2 B.C. to A.D. I. Between his two governorships was Sentius Saturninus, whose tenure lasted from 4 to 2 B.C. Significantly, Tertullian (third century) said the imperial records showed that censuses were conducted in Judea during the time of Sentius Saturninus. (Against Marcion 4:7). Tertullian also placed the birth of Jesus in 3 or 2 B.C. This is precisely when Saturninus would have been governor according to my new interpretation. That the Gospel of Luke says Quirinius was governor of Syria when the census was taken is resolved by Justin Martyr's statement (second century) that Quirinius was only a procurator (not governor) of the province (Apology 1:34). In other words, he was simply an assistant to Saturninus, who was the actual governor as Tertullian stated."


The second option is favored by William Ramsey (NBD, s.v. "Quirinius"):

"The possibility that Quirinius may have been governor of Syria on an earlier occasion (*Chronology of the NT) has found confirmation in the eyes of a number of scholars (especially W. M. Ramsay) from the testimony of the Lapis Tiburtinus (CIL, 14. 3613). This inscription, recording the career of a distinguished Roman officer, is unfortunately mutilated, so that the officer's name is missing, but from the details that survive he could very well be Quirinius. It contains a statement that when he became imperial legate of Syria he entered upon that office 'for the second time' (Lat. Iterum). The question is: did he become imperial legate of Syria for the second time, or did he simply receive an imperial legateship for the second time, having governed another province in that capacity on the earlier occasion?. The wording is ambiguous. Ramsay held that he was appointed an additional legate of Syria between 10 and 7 because, for the purpose of conducting the Homanadensian war, while the civil administration of the province was in the hands of other governors, including Sentius Saturninus (8-6 bc), under whom, according to Tertullian (Adv. Marc. 4. 19), the census of Lk. 2:1ff. Was held.

Under either of these scenarios, SOMEONE served twice, and under either of these scenarios, Quirinius could EASILY have been responsible for the census.
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/quirinius.html


I submit my answer ,that it was Constantine ,who came up with that date was correct.

No. That's wrong.

Nobody is predestined to go to hell. He said MY grace is sufficient for all.

And this one "For God so LOVED the world that he gave his only begotten, that WHOSOEVER
believeth in him shall not persish,
but have everlasting life".

Which Herod? There were several of them.

Herod the Great, obviously.


I didn't say that we knew the day. I explained why the date was set at Dec 25. You said it was because of Pagan influence. And I explained it is because the first day of Creation has been March 25 ever since Moses established the date for the first Passover.

That doesn't make sense.


The Bible is perfectly in sync with history. Human knowledge is just catching up to the Bible and is proving the Bible true.

Yet again we agree. We've got to stop doing this!! ;)