jaybird18c

Ok. So what do you do when you don't fully understand a verse with regard to a particular principal? You pull from everywhere else in scripture that deals with that principal to figure out what it means. That systematic approach leads one to believe that faith is required for forgiveness.

Let's look at the verse: "One day He was teaching; and there were some Pharisees and teachers of the law sitting there, who had come from every village of Galilee and Judea and from jerusalem; and the power of the Lord was present for Him to perform healing. And some men were carrying on a bed a man who was paralyzed; and they were trying to bring him in and to set him down in front of Him. But not finding any way to bring him in because of the crowd, they went up on the roof and let him down through the tiles with his stretcher, into the middle of the crowd, in front of Jesus. Seeing their faith, He said, Friend, your sins are forgiven you. The scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, Who is this man who speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?" (Luke 4:17-21, NASB, emphasis added) That man was forgiven based on his faith. Just like Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, or anyone else declared righteous by God prior to the attonement of Jesus Christ on the cross. That's what the "Passover" is all about. The blood of the innocent lamb as a "sin covering." Sacrifice of animals doesn't forgive sin. Only God can do that. It is "looking forward" to what would occur. It's the same reason God provided a ram substitute for Abraham. The ram was a type/shadow of Jesus Christ who was to come. One of my absolute favorite sections of scripture is Romans 3:23-26. It explains every man's condition before God and how those prior to Christ could be forgiven based on the sacrifice of Christ.

It's exhausting effort just to stay on top of my A.D.D.

What RonD1120 is describing is pluralism/universalism. That is not what Jesus taught (John 14:6). I did not make that statement. It belongs to Laszloimage. Ok. I appologize.

I'm sorry. I do not mean to be. I'm just trying to explain the theology in response to the question. If I come across as smug, I appologize. My intent is not to appear moralistic or intollerant. I don't think I'm either. The point is, I am NOT righteous in and of myself. However, I have been declared and "seen as" righteous because of what Jesus Christ did in my place. It's a forensic/legal status. I have been declared legally innocent because my fine was paid for me. Now, I am expected to live for the one who stood in my place. That does not mean you don't sin anymore. It does mean that you are now being conformed over the course of your life, however. One who has not made that exchange, however, has to be "righteous" on his/her own terms, which falls short of God's standard, and justice demands that they one day give an account.

What RonD1120 is describing is pluralism/universalism. That is not what Jesus taught (John 14:6). I would say that Gandi was a very intelligent and "self" righteous man. That does not mean that he didn't do a lot of good (from our perspective). The problem is, unless Gandi appropriated the substitutionary sacrifice that Jesus made on behalf of "His" people through repentance and faith in Him, then his sins were not forgiven. He would have to give an account for them himself when he died. That's what I mean by self-righteous. It's not true righteousness which can only come God because only God is good. The issue is one of righteousness. Not whether or not he did a lot of good while he was here.

No. One's claim to be Christian doesn't make one a follower of Christ (Matthew 7). One's profession of belief or "decision" for Christ doesn't either. "You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder." (James 2:19) No one should ever tell someone they are saved. People should be told how to be saved (repent & believe the gospel). God then impresses upon them whether or not they really are and their lives should relect that change. "But prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves. Again, I AM NOT talking about works unto salvation (self-righteousness). I AM talking about evidence of regeneration. That IN NO WAY indicates that the professing Christian doesn't also do "bad things." It's in his old nature to do so. However, that cannot be what rules his life. As a pattern of maturation, he should be developing over the course of his life into something different, the "image" of Christ.

Christians should display love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control (Galatians 5:22) if they are growing in their sincere faith, however, they do not have the monopoly on morality. I know many non-Christians who live in many ways better than some I find in church. Of course, this is a self-righteousness with flawed motive but with an outward appearance of morality just the same (Romans 2:14-15). I do not mean to use the term self-righteous in my previous sentence in a negative way. I was just trying to describe it. It has everything to do with what we mean by "good." But back to the point. Christianity shouldn't be judged by the misconduct of its supposed followers. "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter." (Matthew 7:21) Not everyone sitting in the pews who claim the title of Christian really is one.

That's a pity. I'd expect you not to accept scientific rules for theology and the existence of God. Not believing scientific evidence for scientific conduct is silly. It's what that language is built for. How do you think medicines are developed these days? New medical treatments? It's not the same world as theology, why would you expect to use the same language? Wendy P. Wendy....I agree with you. And I'm proud of that. Because, in my old days in here as pajarito and now, that didn't happen very often. I know what he's referring to and I agree with him somewhat. There is a subjective spiritual component to biblical interpretation, however, we should not rely on our feelings primarily. Our faith should be driven by or theology. Paul said "Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship. And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect. (Romans 12:1, NASB, emphasis added) I'm not discounting feelings but they can change and even be deceiving. Our rock that we lean on should always be the word of God which He has communicated to us through written language.

The Apostle Paul was beaten, imprisoned, prevented (so he thought) from traveling and taking the good news to the gentiles, and eventually executed in prison. However, his letters became some of the most influential in Christendom. He (rather God) beat the system through Paul...and in doing so...Paul, even imprisoned and in death, shared in God's victory.

There's nothing new under the sun.

How about the expanding universe, matter, energy, space/time, governing laws of physics, electromagnetism, etc. Just prior to them coming into existence (ex nihilo)? Evidence seems to indicate that there was a starting point. We just disagree on what started it. A prime mover or just random chance. All that stuff didn't exist prior..but now it does. But I guess, by definition, that isn't tangible evidence of non-existence (that doesn't even make sense but it was fun to say. ) However, all this stuff points to it all not existing at some point...right? Is that evidence...of a sort? I guess the logical argument itself might serve as a form of evidence that something didn't exist in the past. Yeah...I'm sticking with that. Not sure about all that but all this stuff does seem to indicate that it came from somewhere. Its complexity and order seem to indicate information and design. So it existing might be proof of a designer since information has to come from somewhere other than matter itsitself.

"You Don't Honestly Believe that! http://www.rzim.org/justthinkingfv/tabid/602/articleid/6632/cbmoduleid/881/default.aspx Just read this. Good article.

The context here is that Jesus was teaching the people not to pray in meaningless repetition, like the Pharisees. He gave them the model for prayer. NO. He referred to it (a lot). "For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?" (John 5:46)

Wow! What to say to all that... Nevermind...

I don't say this in meanness. I promise. But what you just said is very heretical and not up for debate. It is the stuff that cults are made of. It is the lie that was first told to Adam & Eve. ("Did God really say; You can be like God")

Several items of disagreement here: (And don't take this wrong; I don't mean any of it as an attack) Jesus appointed as Judge “We are witnesses of all these things He did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They also put Him to death by hanging Him on a cross. God raised Him up on the third day and granted that He become visible, no to all the people, but to witnesses who were chosen beforehand by God, that is, to us who ate and drank with Him after He arouse from the dead. And He ordered us to preach to the people , and solemnly to testify that this is the One who has been appointed by God as Judge of the living and the dead. Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.” (Acts 10:38-43) “We ought always to give thanks to God for you, brethren, as is only fitting, because your faith is greatly enlarged, and the love of each one of you toward one another grows ever greater; therefore, we ourselves speak proudly of you among the churches of God for your perseverance and faith in the midst of all your persecutions and afflictions which you endure. This is a plain indication of God’s righteous judgment so that you will be considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which indeed you are suffering. For after all it is only just for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you, and to give relief to you who are afflicted and to us as well when the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire, dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.” (2 Thessalonians 1:3-8) With regard to our being able to save ourselves: (God speaking to Jonah) “But I will sacrifice to You with the voice of thanksgiving. That which I have vowed I will pay. Salvation is from the Lord.” (Jonah 2:9) “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.” (Ephesians 2:8) If you were just like Him, you wouldn't need saving and Jesus didn't have to die in your place (a fatal misunderstanding). “These things you have done and I kept silence; You thought that I was just like you; I will reprove you and state the case in order before your eyes.” (Psalm 50:21)

Both. Hypostatic Union - Jesus Christ was "fully" God and, at the same time, "fully" human. Impossible to explain properly or understand completely. It is in fact a mystery. But necessary. If He was one but not the other, then that is very bad news for us because we cannot be forgiven our sins. Both would be required for His sacrifice to be sufficient. Added: Looking back at your quote, I totally disagree with one part. The part where you described Jesus as a "god like ourselves." Just gotta make that clear. We "are not" little gods.

This is from a book I had to read for Systematic Theology 1. The book is “The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination”, Loraine Boettner, 1932. I can’t explain it any better than they did. It reflects my belief on the subject. “Most Calvinistic theologians have held that those who die in infancy are saved. The Scriptures seem to teach plainly enough that the children of believers are saved; but they are silent or practically so in regard to those of the heathens. The Westminster Confession does not pass judgment on the children of heathens who die before coming to years of accountability. Where the Scriptures are silent, the Confession, too, preserves silence. Our outstanding theologians, however, mindful of the fact that God’s “tender mercies are over all His works,” and depending on His mercy widened as broadly as possible, have entertained a charitable hope that since these infants have never committed any actual sin themselves, their inherited sin would be pardoned and they would be saved on wholly evangelical principals.” “Their destiny is determined irrespective of their choice, by an unconditional decree of God, suspended for its execution on no act of their own; and their salvation is wrought by an unconditional application of the grace of Christ to their souls, through the immediate and irresistible operation of the Holy Spirit prior to and apart from any action of their own proper wills.” (B.B. Warfield) Again, I could be completely wrong on this and this is a “non-essential” position that we can agree to disagree on. I submit to what the scripture says. I remain flexible on where scripture is silent or where a particular subject is left in ambiguity. It would be my hope that all infants would be saved by God’s grace. The payment of Jesus Christ was certainly sufficient for the salvation of all. However, for reasons known only to Him, it was only efficient for His elect.

Let me emphasize to you that I do not consider this an "essential" that we'd have to agree on (as Christians) in terms of salvation (just with regard to baptism; I haven't gotten to the "infant saved or not" question yet). I guess my answer to your question above is "it depends." The God of the OT is the same God in the NT. I agree that we are under the New Covenant and should live our lives as such as is described in the NT. However, I don't think one can fully "understand" what God has revealed to us about himself unless you start in the beginning. The story is an unfolding "progressive revelation" of God's plan of salvation for His people. It starts in Genesis with God having to call Adam back to himself (because he wouldn't have come on his own) and providing the first sacrificial "sin-covering" (animal sacrifice) Himself (a type/shadow of the sufficient one to come; Jesus Christ). All of scripture helps our understanding. Just my opinion brother. Again, not an essential.

Hopefully without getting into the baptism issue too deeply, I would quickly say that the bible is clear that no one is justified by the act of baptism or any other work (by us). However, Christians are instructed to do so. Catholics believe in Sacradotalism indicating that one is saved through the sacraments (e.g. must be baptized and participate in the mass in order to be saved). Therefore, they also baptize their infants/children. I very strongly disagree with this (Sacradotalism, not the paedobaptism part) and find it absolutely contrary to the teachings of Paul (Ephesians 2:8-9). Others (e.g. Presbyterians) also believe in paedobaptism, however, it means something completely different from the Catholics. Presbyterians (Reformed/Covenantal Theology) see it, as do Baptists/Methodists, etc. as a "Sign of the New Covenant." However, Presbyterians come at it from a different perspective. They (of which I am one) believe that baptism is in fact a sign of the New Covenant but that it is a sign of God's covenant with His people (which cannot be broken because God always keeps His promises). We, on the other hand, always do not and fall short. Baptism is a replacement of the "blood" covenant of circumcision in the OT with the "bloodless" New Covenant accomplished by Jesus Christ in the NT. It is now, identification with the Savior. It in NO WAY indicates that one is justified before God. That ONLY comes by faith (evidenced by repentance) in Jesus Christ (those whom He has called to Himself). However, it does mean that infant who has been baptized into the covenant family enjoys the benefits of such. At some point, he/she will be required to repent and place their faith in Jesus in order to be saved. Also, believers, if not baptized, should also be. Baptists, on the other hand, just come at it from the human perspective (which is not necessarily wrong). They say that baptism is an outward sign of an inward change (which is true) and that (in the NT), only believers were described being baptized (which is also true; by immersion, most likely). I've got no problem with that. Both of us agree that no one is saved by baptism. We could be wrong and still have fellowship with one another. Anyway, that’s my understanding of baptism in a nutshell (my opinion; everybody’s got one). That aside, I’ll think about the question of children dying at a young age and whether they are saved or not and post in a bit. Gotta pace myself.

Presbyterian here (PCA)...no shortage of joy...because my debt has been paid...and I still like beer and Bacon.

Dude, that's quite a stretch. There were too many witnesses. Too many corroborating stories. There's no evidence that they were lying or insane. Especially, not "all" of them. That is ridiculous.

Romans 2:14-15

That is true...I do. But that is a shift from the question on your part. But...I respect that answer more than the previous ones. At least you admit (somewhat?) that you just don't believe it...but that is aside from the logic in my statement.