What does this phrase mean to you?

***ADDED: Hope. What is "hope" to you? "Hope" sounds like maybe yes, maybe no. "I hope someone will give me a new cookie jar for Christmas. I've dropped enough hintsl" Or is "the hope of heaven" a definite thing? If so, why not say "the certainty of heaven"?

What does this phrase mean to you?

That God loves me and I have a firm hope of being with Him in eternity.

That God loves me and I have a firm hope of being with Him in eternity.
Is a firm hope like firm Jello?

Is a firm hope like firm Jello?

No. Its like the attitude of child to his parents. A child falls and cries and raises his arms expecting his parents will pick him up.

It is expectation.
Psalm 62:5
My soul, wait thou only upon God; for my expectation is from him.

It is a state of mind waiting for the manifestation of our presence in heaven.

Maggie 3

No. Its like the attitude of child to his parents. A child falls and cries and raises his arms expecting his parents will pick him up.

It is expectation.
Psalm 62:5
My soul, wait thou only upon God; for my expectation is from him.
So it's not certain then. The parents may walk away and leave the child lying there.

What does this phrase mean to you?

You made some additions.


***ADDED: Hope. What is "hope" to you?

One step above faith:

2 Corinthians 10:15
Not boasting of things without our measure, that is, of other men's labours; but having hope, when your faith is increased, that we shall be enlarged by you according to our rule abundantly,



"Hope" sounds like maybe yes, maybe no.

It's a very strong "maybe yes"
Hebrews 6:11
And we desire that every one of you do shew the same diligence to the full assurance of hope unto the end:


"I hope someone will give me a new cookie jar for Christmas. I've dropped enough hintsl" Or is "the hope of heaven" a definite thing? If so, why not say "the certainty of heaven"?

Because it isn't a certainty. It is a hope.

Heb 6 4For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,

5And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

6If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

Sincerely,

De Maria

You made some additions.
Yes, after your first answer -- you inspired me.


Because it isn't a certainty. It is a hope.
So it might not happen.

Right, I cannot right now know that I'll end up in heaven. But I have a hope, and one that is not ill-conceived, that I will. (In case you're wondering, an ill-conceived hope would be were I to, for instance, harbor the hope that by flapping my arms really fast I'll begin to fly.)

As the following passage shows, there are different kinds of hope.

Ro 4:18-25

18 Against all hope , Abraham in hope believed and so became the father of many nations, just as it had been said to him, "So shall your offspring be." 19 Without weakening in his faith, he faced the fact that his body was as good as dead — since he was about a hundred years old — and that Sarah's womb was also dead. 20 Yet he did not waver through unbelief regarding the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God, 21 being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised. 22 This is why "it was credited to him as righteousness." 23 The words "it was credited to him" were written not for him alone, 24 but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness — for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. 25 He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.
NIV

Because of their age, there was NO HOPE according to worldly standards or reason that Abraham would have a child by Sarah. But Abraham had the sure hope which is spiritual and comes from God.

This sureness also applies to spiritual understanding and faith as well as hope... as the following show. (the Greek word for sure is playrowforeea

Col 2:2
2 That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ;
KJV

1 Th 1:5
5 For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance ; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake.
KJV

Heb 6:11
11 And we desire that every one of you do shew the same diligence to the full assurance of hope unto the end:
KJV

Heb 10:22-23
22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.

23 Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised)
KJV

Yes, after your first answer -- you inspired me.

So it might not happen.

Hmm?

We are taught that we don't judge even ourselves. It is up to God.

Hmm?

We are taught that we don't judge even ourselves. It is up to God.

Scripture must be taken in context. Just as scripture nowhere give any prohibition against judging (despite what we often here), there are things are we are to judge and those which we are not to judge.

1 Cor 11:30-33
31 For if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world.
NKJV

Just as scripture nowhere give any prohibition against judging (despite what we often here), there are things are we are to judge and those which we are not to judge.


1Cor.4.5? Is there some appeal to context that will show that it is now the time?

Scripture must be taken in context.

Agreed.


Just as scripture nowhere give any prohibition against judging (despite what we often here), there are things are we are to judge and those which we are not to judge.

Again, agreed.


1 Cor 11:30-33
31 For if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world.
NKJV

As I understand this topic, we are discussing the "hope" of salvation. Not judging whether we are prepared for the Sacraments.

The verse above is about preparing oneself for the Eucharist:
28But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

29For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. 30For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. 31For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. 32But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.

The verse which I stand upon is this:
1 Corinthians 4:4For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord. 5Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God.

Sincerely,

1Cor.4.5? Is there some appeal to context that will show that it is now the time?

Did you read the context? It is referring to those judging Paul, not us judging ourselves.

1 Cor 4:1-5
4:1 Let a man so consider us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. 2 Moreover it is required in stewards that one be found faithful. 3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by a human court. In fact, I do not even judge myself. 4 For I know nothing against myself, yet I am not justified by this; but He who judges me is the Lord. 5 Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord comes, who will both bring to light the hidden things of darkness and reveal the counsels of the hearts. Then each one's praise will come from God.
NKJV

Did you read the context? It is referring to those judging Paul, not us judging ourselves.

1 Cor 4:1-5
4:1 Let a man so consider us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. 2 Moreover it is required in stewards that one be found faithful. 3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by a human court...

Pay close attention:

In fact, I do not even judge myself.

Here's why:

4 For I know nothing against myself, yet I am not justified by this; but He who judges me is the Lord.

Therefore,

5 Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord comes,


Why judge nothing before Jesus arrives?

who will both bring to light the hidden things of darkness and reveal the counsels of the hearts. Then each one's praise will come from God.
NKJV

Because Jesus reads the hearts and everyone's praise will be from God.

Sincerely,

5 Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord comes,

I don't see how the context mitigates this. Judge nothing until the Lord comes. Nothing.

Pay close attention:

I am and now you, please pay attention.

Read the context of 1 Corinthians. To help focus your reading, why don't you tell me why, if no one is to judge, why then does Paul say...

1 Cor 2:14-16
15 But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one. 16 For "who has known the mind of the LORD that he may instruct Him?" But we have the mind of Christ.
NKJV

1Cor2.14-16 and 1Cor.4.5 use different words for judge.

1Cor.2.14-16: The verb here is anakrino (hoti pneumatikos anakrinetai... ho de pneumatikos anakrinei).

1Cor.4.5: The verb here is krino (... me pro kairou ti krinete... ).

While anakrino does contain krino as its root, the two verbs have different meanings. Anakrino means to examine or search out. Krino (like its Latin counterpart, cerno) means to divide, separate, accuse, arraign, bring to trial, pass sentence upon, condemn.

So 1Cor.2.14-16 and 1Cor.4.5 are talking about different things, a fact which is readily apparent in Greek but which is lost in some English translations. It is quite evident that 1Cor.4.5 is talking about judging in the sense that is relevant to the present discussion. And in this sense of judge, we are told not to judge before the time, i.e. before the return of the Lord.
QED

1Cor2.14-16 and 1Cor.4.5 use different words for judge.

1Cor.2.14-16: The verb here is anakrino (hoti pneumatikos anakrinetai... ho de pneumatikos anakrinei).

1Cor.4.5: The verb here is krino (... me pro kairou ti krinete...).

While anakrino does contain krino as its root, the two verbs have different meanings. Anakrino means to examine or search out. Krino (like its Latin counterpart, cerno) means to divide, separate, accuse, arraign, bring to trial, pass sentence upon, condemn.

So 1Cor.2.14-16 and 1Cor.4.5 are talking about different things, a fact which is readily apparant in Greek but which is lost in some English translations. It is quite evident that 1Cor.4.5 is talking about judging in the sense that is relevant to the present discussion. And in this sense of judge, we are told not to judge before the time, i.e., before the return of the Lord.
QED

Revgade already explained what it means in context. This discussions shows a common problem with Biblical interpretation - both of these provide the context of what Paul is saying and indeed throughout scripture we have a great deal about judging. The problem comes when a single verse such as the one in 1 Cor 4 is taken out of context both of the local passage and of scripture as a whole - that is when we end up with errors such as the belief that we are not to judge at all, when in fact scripture is abundantly clear that we are to judge, but to judge in accordance with the limitations imposed by God and to judge righteously.

Revgade already explained what it means in context. This discussions shows a common problem with Biblical interpretation - both of these provide the context of what Paul is saying and indeed throughout scripture we have a great deal about judging. The problem comes when a single verse such as the one in 1 Cor 4 is taken out of context both of the local passage and of scripture as a whole - that is when we end up with errors such as the belief that we are not to judge at all, when in fact scripture is abundantly clear that we are to judge, but to judge in accordance with the limitations imposed by God and to judge righteously.

Apparently you didn't read the post you quoted. We are to judge (anakrino) but we aren't to judge (krino). Two different words, meaning two different things, used in two different passages. At 1Cor.4.5 we are told not to judge (krino) until the Lord comes. You are welcome to your private or denominational interpretation, but ignoring the meanings of words isn't likely to persuade anyone who doesn't already agree with you. Scripture is perfectly clear on this, it even uses two different words so as not to confuse us.

Let's just be clear about what St. Paul is saying in 1Cor.4.1-5

He says that he should be regarded as a steward of Christ and of the mysteries of God. A steward must be found to be trustworthy, he tells us. Next he says that it doesn't bother him at all to be examined (anakrino: translated "judged") by a human tribunal (notice the legal terminology: tribunal). He doesn't examine (anakrino) himself (that's for the tribunal or judge to do). Although he isn't aware of anything against him, he does not thereby stand acquitted (again, legal terminology: acquitted). So, he says, don't go around making any judgments (krino, about who is guilty or who is to be acquitted) before the return of the Lord; he is the only one who can pass judgment (krino), since he knows our motives and what is in our hearts. The legal language deployed here makes perfect sense of the use of the verb "krino" (remember, this is different from anakrino).

So it doesn't bother him to be examined (anakrino), but we aren't to pass judgment (krino). In 1 Cor.2.14-16 he is talking about the spiritual person examining (anakrino) spiritual things. And the spiritual person (ho pneumatikos) is not subject to being examined (anakrino) by those who aren't spiritual--he calls them hoi psuchikoi. And that makes sense, since the unspiritual person wouldn't understand the spiritual person (which is the point he makes earlier in ch.2).

And here's how clever St. Paul is. In 1Cor.4.3-4 he uses "anakrino" (the preposition "ana" or "before" + "krino"--anakrino is the stuff one does before rendering a judgment or verdict). Then, in v.5, he switches to "krino". So the word anakrino (before + krino) occurs BEFORE KRINO--now that's clarity for you! So the stuff that is done before krinein (the infinitive of krino), that is conducting an examination, searching into the matter, that's okay, that doesn't bother him; but we mustn't render the judgment or verdict ourselves (v.5). Not only does this comport beautifully with the passage you cite, at 1Cor.2.14-16, where we're encouraged to examine spiritual realities, but it's as if St. Paul is saying, "Tom, you've completely misunderstood what I'm talking about". You're right about one thing though: Context is really important!

Judgment, the rendering of a verdict (krino), must await the Lord's return, and this is clearly indicated to be a *future* event. He alone is the judge. It is for us only to examine, to search out (anakrino), to do the stuff that comes before a judgment is rendered and which is not itself the rendering of that judgment.

Oh, and I just checked Mt.7.1-5 ("judge not"): Yeah, it's "krino" there too.

Apparently you didn't read the post you quoted. We are to judge (anakrino) but we aren't to judge (krino). Two different words, meaning two different things, used in two different passages. At 1Cor.4.5 we are told not to judge (krino) until the Lord comes. You are welcome to your private or denominational interpretation, but ignoring the meanings of words isn't likely to persuade anyone who doesn't already agree with you. Scripture is perfectly clear on this, it even uses two different words so as not to confuse us.

First, it is not my interpretation - I am reading what Paul said, but I am reading all of it.

I did. I read it in the whole of the context of what Paul is saying. Keep in mind that when the word "Therefore" is used, this is a conclusion. It is not introducing new information but is simply providing the conclusion / summary of Paul's argument. You cannot therefore claim that the conclusion is speaking about a different topic than the preceding argument.

Further. To claim that we are not to judge anything (which is out of context for 1 Cor), would be contrary to the context of the rest of scripture. For example:

John 7:24
24 Do not judge (krino) according to appearance, but judge (krino) with righteous judgment."
NKJV

Acts 15:19-21
19 Therefore I judge (kriino) that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, 20 but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood.
NKJV

These are just examples. Your private interpretation is ignoring both the local and the wider context of scripture, and in an effort to support a theological system of men is attempting to place one passage ion contradiction with other parts of scripture.

You cannot therefore claim that the conclusion is speaking about a different topic than the preceding argument.

Um, I don't know if you noticed, but you just used "therefore" to introduce "new information".


Further. To claim that we are not to judge anything (which is out of context for 1 Cor),

Well, I explained the context. If you wish to quarrel with my explanation, by all means, go to my earlier posts and explain, for each claim, the precise nature of my error. Vague allusions to "context" won't do, since I've explained the relevant context. You haven't, though--"the context of the rest of scripture"?. how lazy is that?


would be contrary to the context of the rest of scripture. For example:

John 7:24
24 Do not judge (krino) according to appearance, but judge (krino) with righteous judgment."
NKJV

Acts 15:19-21
19 Therefore I judge (kriino) that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, 20 but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood.
NKJV

These are just examples. Your private interpretation is ignoring both the local and the wider context of scripture, and in an effort to support a theological system of men is attempting to place one passage ion contradiction with other parts of scripture

Actually, Jn.7.24 comports nicely with what I said above: The context is juridical, he's talking about the Law. Acts 15.19-21: Paul has judged, he has made a final determination, etc. What's the problem? He's not talking about usurping what belongs only to Christ (as we learn from 1Cor.4.5). You are once again ignoring the context; Paul is talking about different things in Acts 15.19-21 and 1Cor.4.1-5. (Search engines can be a double-edged sword.)

There isn't anything in 1Cor. That could reasonably lead one to conclude that 1Cor.4.5 is not instructing us not to judge (pass a verdict on ourselves or others) prior to the return of the Lord. I've explained the meaning of the text (we even have the nice play on anakrino and krino, before passing judgment and passing judgment). Your private or denominational interpretation hides behind vague allusions to "context" (thrown around in the way you do, "context" is a very elusive and slippery thing) as a way to avoid coming to terms with your own error, arrogating to yourself and your denominational fellows what is Christ's alone. You have misunderstood the "context", bending it to fit your private or denominational interpretation.

Um, I don't know if you noticed, but you just used "therefore" to introduce "new information".

Your unsubstantiated claim does not make it so. You, on the other hand, are claiming that Paul brought up a new topic, a different reference to judging than prior to the "therefore". Trying to distract from this does not alter that fact.


Well, I explained the context. If you wish to quarrel with my explanation, by all means, go to my earlier posts and explain, for each claim, the precise nature of my error. Vague allusions to "context" won't do, since I've explained the relevant context. You haven't, though--"the context of the rest of scripture"?. how lazy is that?

You did not deal with the context. I did, and have a few times, but you keep going back to your private interpretation.


Actually, Jn.7.24 comports nicely with what I said above: The context is juridical, he's talking about the Law. Acts 15.19-21: Paul has judged, he has made a final determination, etc. What's the problem?

You said that scripture says not to judge. That is what we are discussing. So I presume that you are now conceding the point that we are to judge.

Paul brought up a new topic, a different reference to judging

I'm saying that Paul uses two different words in 1Cor.4.1-5. "Anakrino", which he says doesn't bother him, and "krino", which he contrasts with "anakrino" and tells us not to do. It's the same topic; he is drawing a contrast between what is permissible and what isn't. Duh.


You did not deal with the context. I did, and have a few times, but you keep going back to your private interpretation.


Since you haven't explained where in my earlier posts I've gone astray, I can only assume you must agree with me. That's great! I'm glad to see you've finally jettisoned your private interpretations which ignore basic terminological distinctions. It's good to see you embrace the word of God as it is written.


You said that scripture says not to judge. That is what we are discussing. So I presume that you are now conceding the point that we are to judge.

St. Paul, at 1Cor.4.5, says not to judge regarding who is and who isn't going to heaven (this is, after all, the topic of this thread). I'm assuming he knew what he was talking about. For my part, I expressly stated that not all judgment is of a piece (a fact brought out by revdrgade, as well). From the fact that the translation you favor provides the word "judge" it doesn't follow that the Greek has only one word. "Krino" and "anakrino", both translated a "judge" in the translations you offered in earlier posts, don't mean the same thing. Judgment regarding who is and who is not going to heaven is reserved for the Lord (kurios/kurion) since he alone knows our motives and our hearts.

Aside: Notice that St. Paul uses the title Lord (kurios) for Christ? This was a title that was used for pagan emperors (e.g. Alexander the Great). Kind of like "ponitfex maximus". I don't imagine St. Paul was importing paganism into the true faith, do you? (No need to answer: just an off-topic aside.)

I'm saying that Paul uses two different words in 1Cor.4.1-5. "Anakrino", which he says doesn't bother him, and "krino", which he contrasts with "anakrino" and tells us not to do. It's the same topic; he is drawing a contrast between what is permissible and what isn't. Duh.

Thus my point. You are saying that his discussion is a contrast to the conclusion - thus introducing new material in the conclusion. That is not logical, and not in context with the discussion that Paul makes in 1 Cor.


Since you haven't explained where in my earlier posts I've gone astray, I can only assume you must agree with me.

Then you have not been following our discussion.


St. Paul, at 1Cor.4.5, says not to judge regarding who is and who isn't going to heaven (this is, after all, the topic of this thread). I'm assuming he knew what he was talking about. For my part, I expressly stated that not all judgment is of a piece (a fact brought out by revdrgade, as well).

First, you may be confusing some of my responses to you with those to De Maria who is saying that we are to judge "nothing".

Second, though in general it is true that we are not to judge the hearts of others as to whether they are saved, there are exceptions to that in scripture also, but it seemed to me that this topic was not referring general wo whether we can judge whether others are saved, but what is the "hope" that God has given us for our own salvation? Did He mean what He said when he promised us assurance, or was he just saying that you have a chance but you'll find out later? That is what it seems to me that this is about. It seemed to me that you and De Maria were moving this from that specific topic to something more general with respect to either judging salvation in general or judging in general (in De Maria's case). In this regard, I found many comments that you made to be off to the side of what we were discussing, and that is why I remained focused in my responses. That may be why you thought I was not responding.

Now, since we are speaking about salvation, you should also note this part of the context:

1 Cor 3:12-17
12 Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, 13 each one's work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one's work, of what sort it is. 14 If anyone's work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward. 15 If anyone's work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire. 16 Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? 17 If anyone defiles the temple of God, God will destroy him. For the temple of God is holy, which temple you are.
NKJV

Note that Paul is speaking to those who are the temple of God - he is already judging them saved, so he is not speaking about whether we judge salvation, but rather the judgment of the saint which takes place when Christ returns which is the judgment of works to determine which crowns we receive.

This is a brief (though not exhuastive) overview of the errors therefore in your private interpretation which are indeed numerous.


Aside: Notice that St. Paul uses the title Lord (kurios) for Christ? This was a title that was used for pagan emperors (e.g. Alexander the Great). Kind of like "ponitfex maximus". I don't imagine St. Paul was importing paganism into the true faith, do you? (No need to answer: just an off-topic aside.)

I am surprised that you would make this suggestion. If so you know that kurios simply means lord, and could be, and indeed was applied to many different people in positions of authority (somewhat like the term we use commonly today "sir"), unlike Pontifex Maximus which was specific to the Emperor, the head of the pagan Roman religion. To suggest that Paul was promoting paganism within the church is something that I would suggest is not only historically wrong, but also highly inappropriate.

Let's do take a look at 1Cor.3.

God did not need human instruments but decided to employ Paul and Apollos. It's silly to try to set Paul and Apollos off against each other since they are together a single instrument of God. Even though all the credit goes to God, "each shall receive his wages", this in acknowledgment of the ministers' contribution.

Then we come to v.10 and the building metaphor. The work of each will be disclosed on the Day of Judgment. Some will receive a reward for their work. To mistakenly undertake a work is not to be condemned (remember, as we see in ch.4, v.5, Christ judges our hearts and motives, so honest mistakes don't necessarily merit damnation). The Church is holy (v.17). Become a fool (by accepting the foolishness of the Cross). In v.19 we find a non-Septuagint translation of Job. At v.20, Paul substitutes "wise" for "men" when citing Ps.94.11. Finally we get a formal statement of the relation of all to Christ.

This brings us back to ch.4. Paul didn't appoint himself, nor did the Corinthians appoint him. He isn't bothered about being "judged" (anakrino, examined) by them. His concience is clear, but this is no guarantee that the one true judge agrees. It is for Christ to determine a verdict (krino) since he alone knows our hearts and our motives. Human judgments (ana+krino, before THE judgment) are prior to Christ's judgment (his rendering of the verdict) and are only provisional (pre-judgments, or pre-verdicts, if you will--in the sense of ana+krino).

Interestingly, St.Paul precisely does not claim to "judge them saved", as you put it; if he had, he might have said it here. Your interpretation, then, is an interpolation. It is not warranted by the text. Judgment of the sort that is at issue in this thread is the prerogative of the Lord alone; no such judgment is to be rendered before the time of his return (4.5). (One might even go so far as to say that anyone who does is an anti-Christ, setting himself up in the position of judge which is Christ's alone. And since Satan can quote Scripture, it wouldn't surprise me to hear of an anti-Christ who claims for himself the right to judge (in the sense of 1Cor.4.5), perhaps even bending Scripture in such a way as to make himself look to some as though he were being faithful to God's word.)

You are, of course, welcome to continue adducing further passages of Scripture. So far, none that you have offered has suggested that I've misunderstood 1Cor.4.5. You appear to be firmly in the grip of a private or denominational interpretation of Scripture. You have as yet said nothing to unpack your frequent allusions to "context" in a way that indicate any error in my reading of the texts. It might serve your interests better to stick with the few pericopes already on offer and provide a clear and detailed account of the errors you take me to have committed. Failing that, I prefer to stick with the word of God--in preference to your own private interpretation.

As for kurios: Alexander was regarded as a (pagan) deity. The term was used to refer to pagan gods and demi-gods, among others. If we aren't to be bothered by the pagan history of the *term* "kurios", there is no good reason to be bothered by the pagan history of the *term* "Pontifex Maximus". The mere use of these terms does not amount to a "paganization" of Christianity, anymore than does the use of the term "theos" which was actually used for, you know, pagan gods.

Let's do take a look at 1Cor.3.

God did not need human instruments but decided to employ Paul and Apollos. It's silly to try to set Paul and Apollos off against each other since they are together a single instrument of God. Even though all the credit goes to God, "each shall receive his wages", this in acknowledgment of the ministers' contribution...


Excellent; “each shall receive his wages” wages promised, I might add.

JoeT

Let's do take a look at 1Cor.3.

God did not need human instruments but decided to employ Paul and Apollos. It's silly to try to set Paul and Apollos off against each other since they are together a single instrument of God.

You apparently are back into using strawman arguments - no one argued this. This is why you find that I don't always respond to everything that you post - much of it has nothing to do with the discussion.


Then we come to v.10 and the building metaphor. The work of each will be disclosed on the Day of Judgment.

So now it appears that you agree that this does not deal with salvation, which is the topic of this thread. I could respond line by line to you, and go back over the same points (and I note that you are still trying to add new material in the conclusion), but then all we do is end up in longer and longer posts that become harder and harder to follow, and more and more disassociated from the topic of the thread.


As for kurios: Alexander was regarded as a (pagan) deity. The term was used to refer to pagan gods and demi-gods, among others. If we aren't to be bothered by the pagan history of the *term* "kurios", there is no good reason to be bothered by the pagan history of the *term* "Pontifex Maximus".

Again, you are ignoring both the usage of the term and history. If you wish to ignore all relevant facts, you can, of course, come to any conclusion that you wish, but once again, here are the facts:

- Kurios was not a title of the head of the pagan Roman religion, but a term of respect or acknowledgement of authority used in general for anyone in authority.

- Pontifex Maximus was a formal title given to, and used only for reference to the leader of the pagan Roman religion.

Your conclusions are valid only if one ignores all facts. Your conclusion would not hold up for a moment if any relevant facts are introduced. Why don't you call your leader "the Buddha"? It is a title from another religion.

If you wish to continue down this line, perhaps to avoid hijacking this thread, you may wish to start a new thread.

"Hope is a theologically grounded notion, and I think that perhaps is especially true as Sen. Obama uses it. Hope would have to be distinguished from optimism, which is supposing things will turn out well. Hope is daring to envision something that is beyond either optimism or planning. It is an articulation of a vision, and, as the Bible says, without a vision, the people perish... [Obama's hope] is grounded in a notion that what God intends is justice and mercy and compassion, even if that seems, under current circumstances, to be unrealistic." --Ted Jennings, professor of biblical and constructive theology, Chicago Theological Seminary

You apparently are back into using strawman arguments - no one argued this. This is why you find that I don't always respond to everything that you post - much of it has nothing to do with the discussion.

Yeah, the bit you quote, and accuse of being a strawman, isn't an argument. I was summarizing 1Cor.3.5-10. You know, in order to get the "context" for what you quoted from later in ch.3.


So now it appears that you agree that this does not deal with salvation, which is the topic of this thread. I could respond line by line to you, and go back over the same points (and I note that you are still trying to add new material in the conclusion), but then all we do is end up in longer and longer posts that become harder and harder to follow, and more and more disassociated from the topic of the thread.

If you agree with me that 1Cor.3.12-17 doesn't deal with salvation, I wonder why you quoted it in your response to me. You claimed that it shows that 1Cor.4.5 isn't telling us not to render a verdict or judge one's own or another's salvation. It doesn't show that at all, as I've made quite clear. Something tells me that if you could have refuted anything I've said you'd have done so by now. I'm not adding anything new here; just explaining the Scripture you quoted.


Your conclusions are valid only if one ignores all facts. Your conclusion would not hold up for a moment if any relevant facts are introduced. Why don't you call your leader "the Buddha"? It is a title from another religion.

"All" the facts? I've provided facts, so I can't be avoiding "all" the facts.
Why didn't the NT call God "Buddha" instead of calling him "Ho Theos"? Why not call Christ "Buddha" instead of "Ho Kurios"? (These are rhetorical questions.)


If you wish to continue down this line, perhaps to avoid hijacking this thread, you may wish to start a new thread.

"Hi, Pot. This is Kettle. You're black."

Don't really see how I'm hijacking anything. Each of my posts has dealt with the Scriptures under consideration. I have, however, indicated why some of those Scriptures aren't on-topic. (I did mention it was an aside, and that you needn't respond, by the way.)

Now if you'd like to discuss Scripture that would be great.

Howdy, Wondergirl.

That's a really nice quote. I agree with everything in it (for what that's worth).

(It's a pity about Rick Warren, though. Maybe Obama can bring him back from the dark side of the force. Though I'm not *hopeful* about that!)

"Hope is a theologically grounded notion, and I think that perhaps is especially true as Sen. Obama uses it. Hope would have to be distinguished from optimism, which is supposing things will turn out well. Hope is daring to envision something that is beyond either optimism or planning. It is an articulation of a vision, and, as the Bible says, without a vision, the people perish.... [Obama's hope] is grounded in a notion that what God intends is justice and mercy and compassion, even if that seems, under current circumstances, to be unrealistic." --Ted Jennings, professor of biblical and constructive theology, Chicago Theological Seminary

Yes, my hope and prayers are for one term. We can't afford the wholesale slaughter of the yet-to-be-born. I'm hoping for a real Christian presidency.

JoeT

Yeah, the bit you quote, and accuse of being a strawman, isn't an argument. I was summarizing 1Cor.3.5-10. You know, in order to get the "context" for what you quoted from later in ch.3.

It formed part of your argument.


If you agree with me that 1Cor.3.12-17 doesn't deal with salvation, I wonder why you quoted it in your response to me.

Because the topic, as you yourself indicated is about salvation, and since the passage that you used to validate your argument does not deal with salvation when taken in context (as shown by this passage), your argument falls apart. Therefore the rest of your argument is irrelevant - unless or until you are able to show us how this has any bearing on salvation. Otherwise, it appears that you are now agreeing with me, and conceding the point.


"All" the facts? I've provided facts, so I can't be avoiding "all" the facts.

No, you were ignoring or misrepresenting key facts regarding the historic use or "kurios" and "Pontifex Maximus" (facts which I have summarized twice).



Why didn't the NT call God "Buddha" instead of calling him "Ho Theos"? Why not call Christ "Buddha" instead of "Ho Kurios"? (These are rhetorical questions.)

You don't know? Didn't you claim to be a professor? Then I am very surprised that you would even say so, even as a rhetorical question. I also note that you did not answer the question that I asked of you.

It formed part of your argument.



Because the topic, as you yourself indicated is about salvation, and since the passage that you used to validate your argument does not deal with salvation when taken in context (as shown by this passage), your argument falls apart. Therefore the rest of your argument is irrelevant - unless or until you are able to show us how this has any bearing on salvation. Otherwise, it appears that you are now agreeing with me, and conceding the point.



No, you were ignoring or misrepresenting key facts regarding the historic use or "kurios" and "Pontifex Maximus" (facts which I have summarized twice).



You don't know? Didn't you claim to be a professor? Then I am very surprised that you would even say so, even as a rhetorical question. I also note that you did not answer the question that I asked of you.

Wow. Your logic does NOT resemble our earth logic.

It's interesting. I distributed a couple of threads in which you feature prominently to my students as a side project for extra credit. I said nothing about the threads or the participants, instructing them only to evaluate the arguments contained therein. Every single student who chose to participate found you to have committed a huge number of fallacies and rhetorical manipulations. Were they grading you themselves, every one said they would have given you a grade of F. And these were first semester freshmen. This leads me to believe that others reading this thread will be quite capable of coming to a reasonable evaluation of our exchange.

If you ever decide to say anything substantive about Scripture or my earlier posts I'll be only to happy to respond. Otherwise, I'll let others argue with you for a while.

Wow. Your logic does NOT resemble our earth logic.

Ho hum - I guess if you don't have a good rebuttal, then your only option other than accepting the truth would be to lash out with abusive remarks about the person. The fact that you have resorted to this approach speaks volumes. This is also a logic fallacy (Appeal to ridicule, Personal attack)

BTW, as for comments about your so-called students (and so far nothing that I have seen would validate your claim to be a "professor"). Anyone can make such claims - talk is cheap. I also trust that if you claim to know anything about logic, you know that such an argument is also a logic fallacy (Appeal to popularity, Poisoning the well).

Before you criticize someone else's logic, you may want to get your house in order. What matters is when and if you put forward a position and then validate it from scripture.

Yes, my hope and prayers are for one term. We can’t afford the wholesale slaughter of the yet-to-be-born. I’m hoping for a real Christian presidency.

JoeT
Many young moms are keeping their babies, not getting abortions. Obama will not increase the numbers of abortions. If anything, he will push personal responsibility.

I am and now you, please pay attention.

Read the context of 1 Corinthians. To help focus your reading, why don't you tell me why, if no one is to judge, why then does Paul say.....

1 Cor 2:14-16
15 But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one. 16 For "who has known the mind of the LORD that he may instruct Him?" But we have the mind of Christ.
NKJV

Don't change the subject. Lets go back to what you posted. What does,
In fact, I do not even judge myself. mean?

What does:
5 Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord comes

Mean?

There's no getting around those verses. We are not to judge ourselves saved. Jesus will do that.

As for examining our conscience before communion. Yes, we must examine our conscience and make sure we are in a state of grace before we partake of the Eucharist.

Sincerely,

"Hope is a theologically grounded notion, and I think that perhaps is especially true as Sen. Obama uses it. Hope would have to be distinguished from optimism, which is supposing things will turn out well. Hope is daring to envision something that is beyond either optimism or planning. It is an articulation of a vision, and, as the Bible says, without a vision, the people perish.... [Obama's hope] is grounded in a notion that what God intends is justice and mercy and compassion, even if that seems, under current circumstances, to be unrealistic." --Ted Jennings, professor of biblical and constructive theology, Chicago Theological Seminary

Don't get me started on Obama. I didn't figure you for a liberal until the discussion on the gay issue.

Have you and I concluded our discussion here? I couldn't find a response to my last message.

I didn't figure you for a liberal.
I'm not.

Thanks for derailing my question.

Joe, I do agree with you That one term for the abortion ultra liberal is enough.
I fact it is one to many.
I HOPE your HOPE is fulfilled.
I also HOPE that I am heaven bound.
That HOPE is a firm belief in the words Jesus spoke as recorded in the Holy Bible.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I'm not.

Thanks for derailing my question.

Hm?
1. You were talking about Obama with someone else.
2. Obama is a liberal, is he not?
3. I simply added my two cents as friendly chit chat. Believe me, if I said what I think about Obama, that would derail the thread.

4. This thread is about "the hope of heaven". Perhaps you've forgotten that you and I traded several messages in the first two pages on this topic. I asked if you and I had concluded our discussion because I might have overlooked a response from you.

In conclusion, I didn't derail your thread. You had already taken a rabbit trail of your own choosing and I attempted to bring the thread back to your OP.

Don't change the subject. Lets go back to what you posted. What does,
In fact, I do not even judge myself. mean?

What does:
5 Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord comes

mean?

There's no getting around those verses. We are not to judge ourselves saved. Jesus will do that.

You are going backwards. We already reviewed the context to that and taking a few words out of context is not a proper means of interpretation. If so, then you must also agree that God meant what he said here:

Prov 31:9
9 Open your mouth, judge righteously,
And plead the cause of the poor and needy.
NKJV

John 7:23-24
24 Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment."
NKJV

1 Cor 11:31-32
31 For if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged.
NKJV

The verse that you reference has absolutely nothing to do with salvation when read in context. Even Akoue appears to agree with that. Why do you claim otherwise?

You had already taken a rabbit trail of your own choosing and I attempted to bring the thread back to your OP.
I gave a quote about hope. You picked out one word and chewed on it.

Hm?
1. You were talking about Obama with someone else.
I wasn't talking with anyone about Obama.

For anyone who is interested, 1Cor.11.31-32 uses different words, all of which are sometimes translated "judge". Better translations will typically render v.31: "If we discerned ourselves, we would not be under judgment" [ei de heautous DIEKRINOMEN, ouk an EKRINOMETHA]. Then, in v.32, we get "krino" again: "we are judged by the Lord" [KRINOMENOI de hupo [tou] kuriou]--which sounds vaguely reminiscent of 1Cor.4.5.

Even Akoue appears to agree with that.

Akoue has argued over many pages that 1Cor.4.5 does prohibit judgement regarding salvation. He even argued that references to 1Cor.3 do not in any way change the fact the 1Cor.4.5 is prohibiting judgment regarding salvation. As De Maria rightly points out, we are not to render a verdict (or judgment) regarding salvation until the Lord comes; he will render the verdict because he alone knows our hearts and our motives. (See previous post: "we are judged by the Lord".)

Akoue has argued over many pages that 1Cor.4.5 does prohibit judgement regarding salvation.

Ah, interesting. We did go over this earlier and when I addressed the issue of salvation, you appeared to agree that it has nothing to do with salvation. Perhaps you can show us precisely where this passage refers to salvation.

While you are at it, you may want to look at the numerous passages throughout scripture where judgments are made regarding the salvation of people, such as this one:

Eph 2:8-10
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.
NKJV

2 Tim 1:8-12
8 Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me His prisoner, but share with me in the sufferings for the gospel according to the power of God, 9 who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began, 10 but has now been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Jesus Christ, who has abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel, 11 to which I was appointed a preacher, an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles.
NKJV

Titus 3:3-7
3 For we ourselves were also once foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving various lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful and hating one another. 4 But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, 5 not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
NKJV

Note that this is past tense, thus God has already saved them, and since Paul says "us", he is including himself.
And this one which clearly shows that Paul judges himself saved in the hope:

Rom 8:24
24 For we were saved in this hope, but hope that is seen is not hope;
NKJV

I could show you many others, so you have the problem of showing us where the passage in 1 Corinthians speaks of salvation, dealing with the local context (which has been clearly shown to not say what you claim), and the wider context of scripture where we find that indeed scripture permits judgments of salvation, including ourselves.

I look forward to your concise and direct response.

You are going backwards. We already reviewed the context to that and taking a few words out of context is not a proper means of interpretation. If so, then you must also agree that God meant what he said here:

Prov 31:9
9 Open your mouth, judge righteously,
And plead the cause of the poor and needy.
NKJV

John 7:23-24
24 Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment."
NKJV

1 Cor 11:31-32
31 For if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged.
NKJV

The verse that you reference has absolutely nothing to do with salvation when read in context. Even Akoue appears to agree with that. Why do you claim otherwise?

I notice you didn't answer my questions.

Yes indeed.
I agree that we should NOT judge ourselves OR others about salvation.
My reasons are the bible tells us not to judge that way and the fact that we do not KNOW what is in the hearts of others.
Jesus does and will know and the bible says the He WILL BE the judge of that.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I wasn't talking with anyone about Obama.

According to this quote it indicates that you said:

Originally Posted by Wondergirl View Post
"Hope is a theologically grounded notion, and I think that perhaps is especially true as Sen. Obama uses it. Hope would have to be distinguished from optimism, which is supposing things will turn out well. Hope is daring to envision something that is beyond either optimism or planning. It is an articulation of a vision, and, as the Bible says, without a vision, the people perish... [Obama's hope] is grounded in a notion that what God intends is justice and mercy and compassion, even if that seems, under current circumstances, to be unrealistic." --Ted Jennings, professor of biblical and constructive theology, Chicago Theological Seminary

Therefore unless someone else is using your "Wondergirl" profile, you were talking about how Obama uses the term "hope" theologically.

I notice you didn't answer my questions.

But I did - many times in this thread. This is exactly what we have been discussing over the past few days.

Yes indeed.
I agree that we should NOT judge ourselves OR others about salvation.
My reasons are the the bible tells us not to judge that way and the fact that we do not KNOW what is in the hearts of others.
Jesus does and will know and the bible says the He WILL BE the judge of that.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Really Fred? Maybe you missed these references (for example)

Eph 2:8-10
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.
NKJV

2 Tim 1:8-12
8 Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me His prisoner, but share with me in the sufferings for the gospel according to the power of God, 9 who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began, 10 but has now been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Jesus Christ, who has abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel, 11 to which I was appointed a preacher, an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles.
NKJV

Titus 3:3-7
3 For we ourselves were also once foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving various lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful and hating one another. 4 But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, 5 not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
NKJV

Note that this is past tense, thus God has already saved them, and since Paul says "us", he is including himself. And this one which clearly shows that Paul judges himself saved in the hope:

Rom 8:24
24 For we were saved in this hope, but hope that is seen is not hope;
NKJV

I could show you many others, so you have the problem of showing us where the passage in 1 Corinthians speaks of salvation, dealing with the local context (which has been clearly shown to not say what you claim), and the wider context of scripture where we find that indeed scripture permits judgments of salvation, including ourselves.

I do agree that judging salvation of others is something best left to God, but there are cases where it is appropriate. In the case of ourselves, scripture is very clear.

I await any verse which says in context that we are not to judge our salvation.

But I did - many times in this thread. This is exactly what we have been discussing over the past few days.

No, you didn't. But I'll let you try again.

Don't change the subject. Lets go back to what you posted. What does,
In fact, I do not even judge myself. mean?

What does:
5 Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord comes

Mean?

There's no getting around those verses. We are not to judge ourselves saved. Jesus will do that.

No, you didn't. But I'll let you try again.

Don't change the subject. Lets go back to what you posted. What does,
In fact, I do not even judge myself. mean?

What does:
5 Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord comes

mean?

There's no getting around those verses. We are not to judge ourselves saved. Jesus will do that.

I did actually. We have discussed these points to death over the past several days. I invite you to read over the thread.

You are going backwards. We already reviewed the context to that and taking a few words out of context is not a proper means of interpretation. If so, then you must also agree that God meant what he said here:

Prov 31:9
9 Open your mouth, judge righteously,
And plead the cause of the poor and needy.
NKJV

John 7:23-24
24 Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment."
NKJV

1 Cor 11:31-32
31 For if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged.
NKJV

The verse that you reference has absolutely nothing to do with salvation when read in context. Even Akoue appears to agree with that. Why do you claim otherwise?

According to this quote it indicates that you said:


Therefore unless someone else is using your "Wondergirl" profile, you were talking about how Obama uses the term "hope" theologically.
Please read more carefully. Wondergirl said nothing.

The entire quote was from Ted Jennings. The part you put in bold, the "I think that perhaps is especially true as Sen. Obama uses it," are Professor Jennings' words, not mine. The quote was run in the 12/30/08 Chicago Sun-Times.

De Maria,
I expect that Tj3 will continue to dodge those questions.
But I hope I am wrong and he does provide good answers rather that dodge them
Fred

De Maria,
I expect that Tj3 will continue to dodge those questions.
But I hope I am wrong and he does provide good answers rather that dodge them
Fred

Fred,

I see that you and De Maria are starting the same old approach that no doubt will once again end up in getting a thread shut down - false accusations, attacks against the person, and trying to repeat to death the same old questions after the points were discussed to death so that things go around in circles.

Talking about things not answered, I note that you ignored my comments back to you:

---------------------
Really Fred? Maybe you missed these references (for example)

Eph 2:8-10
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.
NKJV

2 Tim 1:8-12
8 Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me His prisoner, but share with me in the sufferings for the gospel according to the power of God, 9 who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began, 10 but has now been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Jesus Christ, who has abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel, 11 to which I was appointed a preacher, an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles.
NKJV

Titus 3:3-7
3 For we ourselves were also once foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving various lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful and hating one another. 4 But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, 5 not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
NKJV

Note that this is past tense, thus God has already saved them, and since Paul says "us", he is including himself. And this one which clearly shows that Paul judges himself saved in the hope:

Rom 8:24
24 For we were saved in this hope, but hope that is seen is not hope;
NKJV

I could show you many others, so you have the problem of showing us where the passage in 1 Corinthians speaks of salvation, dealing with the local context (which has been clearly shown to not say what you claim), and the wider context of scripture where we find that indeed scripture permits judgments of salvation, including ourselves.

I do agree that judging salvation of others is something best left to God, but there are cases where it is appropriate. In the case of ourselves, scripture is very clear.

I await any verse which says in context that we are not to judge our salvation.

Tj3.
I told the truth as I saw it.
Yiu talked about judging other things but NOT about Judging Salvation. GOD IS THE ONLY JUDGE OF THAT.
So you see you continued to doge the questions as asked, as I expected.
I ignored you post to me because the scripture you posted had nothing yo do with Who IS the judge of who is save and not.
I notice that once again you complained about the truth and in error accused of being attacked. I did no such thing.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Tj3.
I told the truth as I saw it.
Yiu talked about judging other things but NOT about Judging Salvation. GOD IS THE ONLY JUDGE OF THAT.
So you see you continued to doge the questions as asked, as I expected.
I ignored you post to me because the scripture you posted had nothing yo do with Who IS the judge of who is save and not.
I notice that once again you complained about the truth and in error accused of being attacked. I did no such thing.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Fred,

False accusations get you nowhere.

I am not looking for YOUR truth - I am looking for truth from God's word. The verses that I posted (copied once again below) make it clear who is judging. If you claim otherwise, tell me specifically how Paul and others knew that they and others were saved?

Eph 2:8-10
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.
NKJV

2 Tim 1:8-12
8 Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me His prisoner, but share with me in the sufferings for the gospel according to the power of God, 9 who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began, 10 but has now been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Jesus Christ, who has abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel, 11 to which I was appointed a preacher, an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles.
NKJV

Titus 3:3-7
3 For we ourselves were also once foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving various lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful and hating one another. 4 But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, 5 not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
NKJV

Note that this is past tense, thus God has already saved them, and since Paul says "us", he is including himself. And this one which clearly shows that Paul judges himself saved in the hope:

Rom 8:24
24 For we were saved in this hope, but hope that is seen is not hope;
NKJV

I could show you many others, so you have the problem of showing us where the passage in 1 Corinthians speaks of salvation, dealing with the local context (which has been clearly shown to not say what you claim), and the wider context of scripture where we find that indeed scripture permits judgments of salvation, including ourselves.

I do agree that judging salvation of others is something best left to God, but there are cases where it is appropriate. In the case of ourselves, scripture is very clear.

I await any verse which says in context that we are not to judge our salvation.

Tj3,
Forget it.
I'm not reading your posts any longer.
Believe as you wish and I will do the same.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Many young moms are keeping their babies, not getting abortions. Obama will not increase the numbers of abortions. If anything, he will push personal responsiblity.

Ok, this makes great logic, kill babies that weren't in danger to save babies that were to live. Wow, I'm amazed at the depths of Obama's theology.
With logic such as this, I wonder how long it will take him to figure a way to save social security. Let's see, it'll go something like this; eliminate participants who retire to reduce the government outlays. And next after that, let's eliminate anybody who objects – after all they're just trouble makers.

Silly you say? With such a skewed belief system , any man could justify such actions – don't say it can't happen – history shows us just how easy it is.

JoeT

Joe,
Please don't give them any more ideas.
The one you mentioned about SS might just happen because some mentioned it.
Have you noticed that Obama has yet to prove that he is a born American citizen?
The case is now before the Supreme Court who must act before inauguration day.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Tom

So the idea is to refuse to engage with the questions of others while insisting that others write book reports for you. That's okay; I'm accommodating myself to the double-standard.

Yes, in the passages you cite Paul does use the past (or aorist, which is more vague than its English translation) tense. Here are a few where he uses the future tense: Rom.9.13; 1Cor.3.15, 5.5, 7.16. At Phil.2.12 we are told to work out our salvation with fear and trembling (which certainly suggests that it isn't a fait accompli). So is Paul contradicting himself?

No, of course not. But unlike you, Paul does not regard salvation as a hit-and-run event. What do I mean?

The act of salvation that was begun by Christ during his ministry, crucifixion, and resurrection, was and is salvific. But that act is not fully achieved in each one of us until Christ's return. Now you have said elsewhere that Christ's sacrifice was sufficient for salvation. And that's partly true: Partly, because we have to respond to that sacrifice, and if we don't we aren't saved. I think you'd agree with that. So the full realization of salvation in you or me turns on something about us, a response we offer to Christ's sacrifice. If that were not the case, then all of humanity would be saved just by virtue of the fact that Christ died. But this is not what Scripture teaches; there are those who will not be saved. The point De Maria and I have been making is that we, none of us, are not in a position to know who is who, for the reason given at 1Cor.4.5: Only the Lord can see the hearts and motives of men and women. We can search our hearts, and those of others, but the fact that we do not find anything "against" us does not guarantee that we aren't self-deceived. As Paul says, "I do not thereby stand acquitted".

Our response to Christ's salvific act on the Cross isn't punctuated in the way you might think. The mere fact that I have faith at time T1 doesn't guarantee that I will have faith at time T4. And the fact that I think I have faith at time T1 doesn't guarantee that I in fact do. I may be self-deceived. (And self-deception is something Paul thinks we should worry about--fear and trembling, remember.) So the act of sacrifice, the salvific act is an ongoing act (salvation history, not salvation hour). This is why Paul tells us that Christ's gift to us is "everlasting encouragement and good hope" (1Thess.2.16). My salvation, and yours, is not yet fully attained. This is why Paul uses both the past, present, and future tenses when talking about salvation. (Recall that Paul also uses the present tense, I am "being saved": it's an ongoing process.) So I am saved, I am in the process of being saved, and I hope I will be saved. If this strikes you as a stumbling-block then that speaks to the fact that you are too wedded to the wisdom of men.

Since each of us has free will, at no time prior to Christ's return can we be guaranteed of salvation. Now, you think differently. You think that salvation is something that one already has. But then Paul wouldn't talk about it in the future tense as well. Moreover, to suppose that would be to remain completely oblivious of Paul's eschatological conception of salvation. This is precisely the problem with cherry-picking verses, and it is why I have repeatedly encouraged you to dig deeply into a small number of them rather than wheeling them out en masse as if to bludgeon your interlocutor. This is not a respectful way of handling sacred Scripture.

Now, at 1Cor.3.15 Paul writes of one who "will be saved". You yourself claimed that 1Cor.3.10-17 is part of the relevant context for understanding 1Cor.4.1-5. Now you mean to say that the fact that salvation is part of the context of 1Cor.3.10-17 has no bearing on 1Cor.4.1-5? That's not only implausible, it's an outright contradiction. This is why I believe that Paul is talking about judging salvation at 4.5.

Now, I'm not going to go through each passage you've cited in turn since you still have not explained/demonstrated/proven, in any detailed way, how my earlier posts discussing 1Cor.3, 4.1-5 are wrong. (And, actually, as I've just shown, Paul's use of the past tense isn't a problem for anything I've said.) If you recall, your responses consisted principally of allusions to "context". I've explained the context and I have explained what St.Paul is saying at considerable length now.

Both De Maria and I have been asking you for quite some time to respond to our posts regarding 1Cor.4.5. In response you have made vague allusions to context and posed further questions of your own. To the casual observer this looks like an evasion. If you believe that perception to be mistaken you would do well to post your responses to our questions. Then, if you'd like to ask further questions of us, that would be perfectly fair of you.

Ok, this makes great logic, kill babies that weren’t in danger to save babies that were to live. Wow, I’m amazed at the depths of Obama’s theology.
With logic such as this, I wonder how long it will take him to figure a way to save social security. Let’s see, it’ll go something like this; eliminate participants who retire to reduce the government outlays. And next after that, let’s eliminate anybody who objects – after all they’re just trouble makers.

Silly you say? With such a skewed belief system , any man could justify such actions – don’t say it can’t happen – history shows us just how easy it is.

JoeT

Joe, come one, you're killing me here. This is the "hope" thread. I'm trying to be hopeful. (I'd like to propose that next we have a "wish" thread. Wishing is always easier than hoping.)

Akoue,
That was well said.
Thanks.
I learned form it.
Happy prosperous New Year,
Fred

Please read more carefully. Wondergirl said nothing.

The entire quote was from Ted Jennings. The part you put in bold, the "I think that perhaps is especially true as Sen. Obama uses it," are Professor Jennings' words, not mine. The quote was run in the 12/30/08 Chicago Sun-Times.

But in your own words, you have admitted that you quoted someone who mentioned OBAMA'S use of the term "hope".

So, it doesn't matter that you quoted Pr. Jennings, YOU brought up Obama. Whether directly or indirectly.

And believe me, if I'd wanted to talk about Obama, I would have participated in the thread on that subject during and after the election. My words, "don't get me started on Obama" indicate that I DON'T want to talk about him in deference to the fact that he is now our President.

Either way, you're barking up the wrong tree.

>Thread Closed<
For the usual reasons.