[arcura]

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]

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.

[arcura]

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

[JoeT777]

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

[arcura]

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

[Akoue]

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.

[Akoue]

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.)

[arcura]

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

[De Maria]

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.

[Curlyben]

>Thread Closed<
For the usual reasons.