Orthodox Christians

[The Biblicist]

because you dichotomize the Catholic Gospel from Christian Gospel. So that there isn't an "in common" in your view. But clearly that isn't the case.

Of course that was my whole point! So how did I avoid the words "in common" when my whole post was a repudiation of that kind of thinking? The Catholic gospel is not the gospel of Jesus Christ and that is the very point I made. Of course you disagree or else you would not remain in the Catholic Church!

I certainly understand what Paul is getting at. He's talking about opposing gospels which is why the next verse says not that there is another. You either have the gospel or you have an opposing gospel.

And you don't think an "opposing gospel" which you admit is not the true gospel is not "another" gospel in kind than the true gospel?????????

Bottom line, there is "another" gospel which is different in kind from the same gospel Paul preached and Rome's gospel is that false gospel.

Indirectly you certainly did. And framed your question in such nonsense terms that its nearly impossible to make heads or tails of what you were saying.

Perhaps you should ask me to clarify my question before jumping to conclusions about things I never stated but clearly placed in a question form that you could clarify or ask me to clarify??

I understood your testimony to say that OUTSIDE of Catholic influence you came to what you believe was a proper understanding of the Gospel, which in turn led you to leave Catholicism for a while and then return later without any different view of the gospel as first embraced OUTSIDE Catholic influence. Hence, your present understanding of the gospel has not changed from that point only your understanding of the Catholic gospel which you now see as one and the same with what you first received OUTSIDE of Catholic influence. Is that correct or have I misunderstood you again?

If it is correct then the gospel you received then is no more the true gospel as you believe now.

 

[The Biblicist]

The fact that you call it AIF changes the whole tone of this post.

Look, whatever the proper initials might or might not be, I was referring to the situation and institution you claimed you first was given a "proper understanding" of the gospel! It seemed to me it was a non-catholic evangelical institution. You responded to my post with another set of initials. However, regardless of the correct or incorrect initials, I understood your first gospel encounter that you claimed to be a "proper understanding" to be in a non-catholic but protestant environment.

 

[The Biblicist]

Look, whatever the proper initials might or might not be, I was referring to the situation and institution you claimed you first was given a "proper understanding" of the gospel! It seemed to me it was a non-catholic evangelical institution. You responded to my post with another set of initials. However, regardless of the correct or incorrect initials, I understood your first gospel encounter that you claimed to be a "proper understanding" to be in a non-catholic but protestant environment.

I have to go to town and so if I don't respond it is because I am not at my computer.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Of course that was my whole point! So how did I avoid the words "in common" when my whole post was a repudiation of that kind of thinking? The Catholic gospel is not the gospel of Jesus Christ and that is the very point I made. Of course you disagree or else you would not remain in the Catholic Church!

I will answer this and the bottom part of your post because the two are related. Here is the bottom part of your post

I understood your testimony to say that OUTSIDE of Catholic influence you came to what you believe was a proper understanding of the Gospel, which in turn led you to leave Catholicism for a while and then return later without any different view of the gospel as first embraced OUTSIDE Catholic influence. Hence, your present understanding of the gospel has not changed from that point only your understanding of the Catholic gospel which you now see as one and the same with what you first received OUTSIDE of Catholic influence. Is that correct or have I misunderstood you again?

If it is correct then the gospel you received then is no more the true gospel as you believe now.

Fist of all as can be clearly seen in my post above which I spell out the gospel of which I am speaking your line of questioning is revealed as moot. Lets look at what you said.

Of course that was my whole point!...that OUTSIDE of Catholic influence you came to what you believe was a proper understanding of the Gospel, which in turn led you to leave Catholicism for a while and then return later without any different view of the gospel

is totally irrelevant to what I said. Because the gospel I came to understand at RVA is the same Gospel which the Catholic Church teaches namely how I spelled it out

There is one primary euaggelion message which all Christians Catholic/Orthodox/Copt/Protestant hold in comon. Which is the oft quoted

16 “For God so loved the world,[a] that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Which is played out in the incarnation, life, ministry, passion, death, resurrection, and 2nd return of Jesus Christ. So that In His infinite goodness (Eph 2:7), the Father in heaven has called us (1 Pet 5:10) to be united with Him in life and joy (John 17:21), sharing His divine riches (Eph 2:7) and because we are God’s children, He has sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts (Gal 4:6).

Therefore your line of questioning has not basis to even be asked. Which by the way comes by Faith given to us by the Holy Spirit.

 

[The Biblicist]

There is one primary euaggelion message which all Christians Catholic/Orthodox/Copt/Protestant hold in comon. Which is the oft quoted

16 “For God so loved the world,[a] that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Which is played out in the incarnation, life, ministry, passion, death, resurrection, and 2nd return of Jesus Christ. So that In His infinite goodness (Eph 2:7), the Father in heaven has called us (1 Pet 5:10) to be united with Him in life and joy (John 17:21), sharing His divine riches (Eph 2:7) and because we are God’s children, He has sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts (Gal 4:6).

It is just not true! First, Reformed theologions would call the above explanation nothing more than silly putty that anybody can mold and shape to fit into their own brand of soteriology. Bottom line it spells out nothing at all but generalties. Any capable theologian realizes that truth is not found in simply the choice of Biblical terms but in the correct explanation of those terms. You have simply thrown out a Biblical text and loosely thrown out some Biblical sounding expressions that really could be interpeted any number of diverse ways and never even come close to the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

The heart of the gospel is what Jesus Christ does for sinners which sinners cannot do for themselves - namely satisfaction of God's righteous demands. All other biblical data (incarnation, etc.) finds its value and meaning in attaining that goal. Any gospel that denies Christ as completely satisfied that goal in his own person and works but insists that ultimate satisfaction of that goal is attained by something the sinner does for Christ is a false gospel - "another gospel." Rome's gospel is "another gospel" a false gospel.

 

[Bob Hope]

>It would be case by case just like everyone else. Only God can know your heart.

YES! and all our hearts are evil.

Not so, If we who serve Him in good faith will one day earn the words well done thou good and faithful servant how can you say we are all evil?

 

[The Biblicist]

Not so, If we who serve Him in good faith will one day earn the words well done thou good and faithful servant how can you say we are all evil?

Only an evil servant would claim he could "earn" that privilege of grace in the first place. You simply have no concept of grace in salvation or service.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

This is a debate forum is it not? Is this your response to my response to your question about sacraments?

I am 62 years old and retired. My retirement was forced due to a medical condition of my wife which forced me to come home and take care of her. I do that with joy. Early in the morning before my wife arises, I give time and thought to this forum. I have Bible college and Seminary training plus 40 years of pastoral ministry behind me and so writing and responding comes quite easily for me.

I pray for your wife with her condition, and I pray for you as the person who takes care of her. I commend you for this, and I ask God to give both you and your wife strength, encouragement, and blessings.

 

[The Biblicist]

I pray for your wife with her condition, and I pray for you as the person who takes care of her. I commend you for this, and I ask God to give both you and your wife strength, encouragement, and blessings.

Thanks Michael, I appreciate your attitude.

 

[The Biblicist]

It is just not true! First, Reformed theologions would call the above explanation nothing more than silly putty that anybody can mold and shape to fit into their own brand of soteriology. Bottom line it spells out nothing at all but generalties. Any capable theologian realizes that truth is not found in simply the choice of Biblical terms but in the correct explanation of those terms. You have simply thrown out a Biblical text and loosely thrown out some Biblical sounding expressions that really could be interpeted any number of diverse ways and never even come close to the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

The heart of the gospel is what Jesus Christ does for sinners which sinners cannot do for themselves - namely satisfaction of God's righteous demands. All other biblical data (incarnation, etc.) finds its value and meaning in attaining that goal. Any gospel that denies Christ as completely satisfied that goal in his own person and works but insists that ultimate satisfaction of that goal is attained by something the sinner does for Christ is a false gospel - "another gospel." Rome's gospel is "another gospel" a false gospel.

The "silly putty" gospel can be clearly seen in the ECT (Evangelicals and Catholics Together) declaration:

“We affirm together that we are justified by grace through faith because of Christ. Living faith active in love that is nothing less than the love of Christ...”

This is not the gospel of Jesus Christ but a "silly putty" gospel that can be shaped and interpreted any number of ways and that is precisely what both parties do.

 

[billwald]

>>>It would be case by case just like everyone else. Only God can know your heart.

>>YES! and all our hearts are evil.


>Not so, If we who serve Him in good faith will one day earn the words well done thou good and faithful servant how can you say we are all evil?


PHARISEE! Only Jesus and the people in Heaven are sinless. Either a human is sinless or a sinner. There are no a-moral humans in this life.

 

[Bob Hope]

Only an evil servant would claim he could "earn" that privilege of grace in the first place. You simply have no concept of grace in salvation or service.

This forum is so lucky to have you around to explain to all of us the mind of God. If we are saved be hyper optimisum you may be okay.

Here are a few more great examples of what happens to those who do not obey.

Matthew 18:31-35


31 So when his fellowservants saw what was done, they were very sorry, and came and told unto their lord all that was done. 32 Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me: 33 Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee? 34 And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him. 35 So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.



Matthew 25:26-30


26 His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed: 27 Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury. 28 Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents. 29 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath. 30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.




Luke 12:45-47


45 But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken; 46 The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. 47 And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.




Matthew 25:8-13


8 And the foolish said unto the wise, Give us of your oil; for our lamps are gone out. 9 But the wise answered, saying, Not so; lest there be not enough for us and you: but go ye rather to them that sell, and buy for yourselves.10 And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut.11 Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us.12 But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not.13 Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.

 

[Bob Hope]

>>>It would be case by case just like everyone else. Only God can know your heart.

>>YES! and all our hearts are evil.


>Not so, If we who serve Him in good faith will one day earn the words well done thou good and faithful servant how can you say we are all evil?


PHARISEE! Only Jesus and the people in Heaven are sinless. Either a human is sinless or a sinner. There are no a-moral humans in this life.

Be careful, you are calling Jesus a liar.

 

[The Biblicist]

This forum is so lucky to have you around to explain to all of us the mind of God. If we are saved be hyper optimisum you may be okay.

Here are a few more great examples of what happens to those who do not obey.

Matthew 18:31-35


31 So when his fellowservants saw what was done, they were very sorry, and came and told unto their lord all that was done. 32 Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me: 33 Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee? 34 And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him. 35 So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.



Matthew 25:26-30


26 His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed: 27 Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury. 28 Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents. 29 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath. 30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.




Luke 12:45-47


45 But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken; 46 The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. 47 And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.




Matthew 25:8-13


8 And the foolish said unto the wise, Give us of your oil; for our lamps are gone out. 9 But the wise answered, saying, Not so; lest there be not enough for us and you: but go ye rather to them that sell, and buy for yourselves.10 And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut.11 Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us.12 But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not.13 Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.

You are confusing scriptures that deal with different subjects. Chastening is for disobedient children of God while wrath is for false professors and the wicked. Both are unpleasant but one is temporal while the other is eternal.

 

[Bob Hope]

You are confusing scriptures that deal with different subjects. Chastening is for disobedient children of God while wrath is for false professors and the wicked. Both are unpleasant but one is temporal while the other is eternal.

Hard for anyone being honest to confuse the meaning of the above verses. Its quite clear what he means here. "appoint him his portion with the unbelievers."

 

[DHK]

Hard for anyone being honest to confuse the meaning of the above verses. Its quite clear what he means here. "appoint him his portion with the unbelievers."

Appoint who?
There is only one way to heaven, and that way is through Christ. He claimed to be that way in John 14:6. He also claimed in John 10 that those who believed in him and would follow him would be his sheep, and he would give his sheep eternal life, and they would never perish.

I don't know what is hard to understand about "eternal life."
I don't know what is hard to understand about "never perish."

They are two absolutes where eternal means eternal, and if taken away or would stop or cease at any time would not be eternal any longer. Now that would make Christ a liar. That would cause Christ to break his word. If Christ said eternal he meant eternal--without any break whatsoever.

Likewise "never perish." Never means never. How much clearer can these scriptures be. Do you think that somehow sheep turn into wolves, and Jesus doesn't recognize it??

 

[The Biblicist]

Hard for anyone being honest to confuse the meaning of the above verses. Its quite clear what he means here. "appoint him his portion with the unbelievers."

I said there are two different classes of texts you used not one. One class deals with lost professors while the other deals with disobedient Christians. For example the words "I know you not" are not the same as "I NEVER knew you" (Mt. 7:23). Behing shut out of the "joy" of his return is not one and the same as being shut out of heaven.

Being given over to the "tormentors" now until you do pay is not one and the same as being cast into hell in the future for eternal torment where you never finish paying is quite another thing.

Chastening and temporal loss of joy is one thing but eternal wrath is another thing altogether.

 

[Bob Hope]

Appoint who?
There is only one way to heaven, and that way is through Christ. He claimed to be that way in John 14:6. He also claimed in John 10 that those who believed in him and would follow him would be his sheep, and he would give his sheep eternal life, and they would never perish.

I don't know what is hard to understand about "eternal life."
I don't know what is hard to understand about "never perish."

They are two absolutes where eternal means eternal, and if taken away or would stop or cease at any time would not be eternal any longer. Now that would make Christ a liar. That would cause Christ to break his word. If Christ said eternal he meant eternal--without any break whatsoever.

Likewise "never perish." Never means never. How much clearer can these scriptures be. Do you think that somehow sheep turn into wolves, and Jesus doesn't recognize it??

And as long as they follow Him they will be His sheep. The bible also says no man putting his hand to the plow and looking back is fit for the kingdom of God. Recall the parable of the sower? Nothing could be clearer.

15 And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; but when they have heard, Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts.

16 And these are they likewise which are sown on stony ground; who, when they have heard the word, immediately receive it with gladness;

17 And have no root in themselves, and so endure but for a time: afterward, when affliction or persecution ariseth for the word's sake, immediately they are offended.

18 And these are they which are sown among thorns; such as hear the word,

19 And the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of other things entering in, choke the word, and it becometh unfruitful.

20 And these are they which are sown on good ground; such as hear the word, and receive it, and bring forth fruit, some thirtyfold, some sixty, and some an hundred.


Only those bearing fruit will be saved.

 

[Bob Hope]

I said there are two different classes of texts you used not one. One class deals with lost professors while the other deals with disobedient Christians. For example the words "I know you not" are not the same as "I NEVER knew you" (Mt. 7:23). Behing shut out of the "joy" of his return is not one and the same as being shut out of heaven.

Being given over to the "tormentors" now until you do pay is not one and the same as being cast into hell in the future for eternal torment where you never finish paying is quite another thing.

Chastening and temporal loss of joy is one thing but eternal wrath is another thing altogether.

That is not what those verses are saying at all. That is pure pie in the sky. You need to take those rose colored glasses off and be honest with yourself.

 

[DHK]

And as long as they follow Him they will be His sheep. The bible also says no man putting his hand to the plow and looking back is fit for the kingdom of God.

That is a verse on discipleship not on salvation.

Recall the parable of the sower? Nothing could be clearer.

15 And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; but when they have heard, Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts.

16 And these are they likewise which are sown on stony ground; who, when they have heard the word, immediately receive it with gladness;

17 And have no root in themselves, and so endure but for a time: afterward, when affliction or persecution ariseth for the word's sake, immediately they are offended.

18 And these are they which are sown among thorns; such as hear the word,

19 And the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of other things entering in, choke the word, and it becometh unfruitful.

20 And these are they which are sown on good ground; such as hear the word, and receive it, and bring forth fruit, some thirtyfold, some sixty, and some an hundred.


Only those bearing fruit will be saved.

Nothing could be more muddy, not clearer.
One of the first rules of hermeneutics is not to teach doctrine from a parable. A parable, as some define it, is "an earthly story to teach a heavenly (spiritual) truth." IOW, it teaches A truth, one central truth and that is all. Most parables are designed to teach only one truth. Most people try to make the parable teach dozens of truths that Christ never meant the parable to teach.

Parables don't teach doctrine; they only illustrate doctrine that has already been taught. That is the second principle.
Since the doctrine you are trying to uphold is not taught elsewhere you cannot try and use a parable to support it. Parables don't do you any good here.

Finally, you have not refuted the claims of Christ.
Is Christ a liar?
Did he not mean what he said?
Do sheep change into wolves?
Does eternal change into temporary?

In John 10:27-30 Jesus makes some claims concerning the believer that cannot be taken back. He uses absolutes, like "never perish." You need to deal with that text before you jump to another.