Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
 photo jesuslamb.jpgA forum for a community of people interested in discussing salvation in Jesus Christ by grace through faith
Add Reply
December 04, 2006 What do my children have to do to prove that they are my children?
Topic Started: Jul 14 2009, 08:36 PM (166 Views)
lightninboy

Comments:

91 Rose~ said...
Brian,
Pacifiers? None of my kids have ever taken a pacifier, aint that somethin? Maybe this one will. I think I like the idea of a purple pacifier. (Now this is a discussion on my level.)

Ten Cent,
"How do the neighbors across the street know the difference between your kids and your other neighbors kids?"

Interesting re-question. The only thing is the breakdown of the analogy. They would know because of history - they have seen these kids with me. They have been introduced ... there is history. The church is that mystical body, that unseen family.

My main concern isn't with what people from other families think anyway - just as I am not that interested in what unbelievers think about my standing ... or any other Christian's satnding ... with the Father. The unbeliever just doesn't get it and so his opinion is at best secondary.

The questions that I have been pondering:
*how does the child himself know he is a child of that father and
*does his behavior confirm or negate his position as a child?

It is no business of the neighbors. ;~)

12/11/2006 9:56 AM


92 Rose~ said...
Hey, Sarah!
Thanks for your sweet comment. Yes, the fourth child should be coming any day now.

Hi Bobby, Antonio and Jazzycat.
I will enjoy reading all your comments at a later time. They are so long and it hurts to sit at the computer for great lengths. Maybe I will print them out.

Keep on if you wish. John has enjoyed reading all the comments, especially yours, Bobby ... he told me this morning.

Jazzy, keep your claws in or I will have to take you to the vet.

12/11/2006 10:07 AM


93 Comment deleted
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.

12/11/2006 10:52 AM


94 Gojira said...
I had fun too Bobby. I am sure we will meet again on opposite sides.

12/11/2006 11:03 AM


95 Rose~ said...
Hi Gojira.
But I already said hello to you way up yonder. I was greeting those whom I had not spoken to yet. I try to be friendly to everyone who pops over here.

I hope I haven't neglected anyone.
Hi everyone!

Oh, you erased that comment. Well, I will post this one anyway. ;~)

12/11/2006 11:47 AM


96 Ten Cent said...
Hi Rose,

You said "The questions that I have been pondering:
*how does the child himself know he is a child of that father and
*does his behavior confirm or negate his position as a child?"

The child himself knows he is a child of the Heavenly Father because he believes in Him. (Doesn't really relate to the analogy, but it should be the first order of business.) Ok, now for the analogy, the Father claims the child and the child sees evidence of the Father's love bestowed on him, ie, time spent with the child, communication with the child, gifts given to the child, instruction of the child, discipline of the child...all signs of love toward the child.

Does the child's behavior confirm or negate his postition as a child? I would say it doesn't negate it, but it does confirm it. Have you ever said a phrase or a word and it stopped you in your tracks because horror of horrors, you sounded just like your mother? Of course that's a bad analogy because if we sound like, or look like, or reflect in any way our heavenly Father, it's a great thing. But that's where confirmation comes in for me. I see things in my life and I think, I can only do that, or think that, or say that by the grace of God. Him working in and through me. That's reassuring to me.

And you said "It is no business of the neighbors. ;~)"

I totally agree. The analogy did breakdown. But as an aside, the neighbors are watching. And they know what a "Christian" should act like too. And even though it not their business, they are judging us by our actions. And our actions are a reflection on our Father :) But that's another discussion.

So I do think behavior is important. It's important to see the behavior in my own life for the removal of that log that's in my eye. And it's important to look at the behavior of my brothers and sisters in Christ and assist them with the speck that's in their eye. For the purity and the health of the Church. But my bad behavior doesn't mean I'm not a child of God. But I would question it, I would desire to remove it. And should always cause me to look anew at the cross of Christ. To return to the Gospel. Not to question my faith, but to confirm it.

In Christ,
Ten Cent

12/11/2006 11:52 AM


97 GlennW said...
Gojira,

You have not angered me though I was taken back by how strong your reaction to my post was. I expected to make one or two short posts regarding the sin unto death and did not anticipate such a far ranging debate. That being said, I will also make this my last post. I will try and answer what I understand the thrust of your questions to be. My answers will not be as complete or in depth as either of us would like but I do not feel I can afford to put too much more time into this at the moment.

"I am talking about free will in the libertarian sense, which you are advocating. Total Depravity does not negate that people make decisions. The point being made is that your position leaves man with more free will than God, since God is not free to choose to sin."

Okay, I have not studied Aristotle and Aquinas like you and Bobby Grow have so I will take your word that I am advocating libertarian free will. Since my definition of sin is that it is rebellion against God's will, and God cannot rebel against his own will, then I will certainly agree that God cannot sin. However, I am uneasy with any implication that this gives God some quantifiably smaller amount of free will. I believe that being absolute truth and justice opens up a lot of options rather than restricting them.

"You still have man violating what he is by nature to accept something that goes against the grain of who he is by nature..."

I agree that man's sinful nature does make it impossible for him to reconcile himself to God by his own merits but I do not accept that it does not allow him to recognize his need for a solution. So God came up with a solution to my problem that goes against my nature and I would have never thought of it if given an eternity, that does not mean that as a sinner I cannot recognize my need for that solution. It also doesn't mean that I am automatically going to accept that solution either.

Since you take a reformed view of soteriology I assume that you define the act of belief itself as meritorious act. If I believed that belief is meritorious then I would agree with you. As you have probably guessed I believe the act of belief to be non-meritorious.

"Also to state that God gives everyone the "choice of accepting or rejecting salvation...." is nowhere found in scripture."

I do not believe that you and I have any way of resolving this disagreement. We can go back and forth show casing different passages but we will always be able to interpret the passages involved using our current theologies.

"For example, can you show where God was presenting native Americans with the gospel two days after the resurrection? Had He so desired, He could have."

No, I cannot show that but I do agree that God could have if he so desired. The one thing I do strongly hold to is that God knows all thoughts and intents of the heart and that if anyone is receptive to the gospel it will be provided. So, if there was someone (I will use my pastor's vocabulary here) who had positive volition to the gospel at God consciousness in the Americas two days after the resurrection then it was provided. of course you can accuse me of arguing from silence but so are you.

Also, if God chooses who believes why concentrate them in the Mediterranean and Europe?

"You have just separated desire from the nature and made it stand in contrast to one's nature. In other words, you have just denied the passage you earlier quoted from Jeremiah."

Once again I believe we use vocabulary in different ways and have different views about the relationship of desire and nature. As for my view of desire and nature I can explain what I believe the relationship to be. I believe we are all born with a body and a soul (dichotomous) with the sin nature being part of our corrupt bodies. When we believe we receive a human spirit (we become trichotomous) which permits us to understand spiritual phenomena. The next logical question is how can a dichotomous person understand the offer of salvation in the first place? My answer is the Holy Spirit and his ministry of common grace.

Does this separate desire from the nature? I don't know. If I have a different view than you of the relationship between desire and nature that would not surprise me much.

The fact that I do believe the human heart to be desperately wicked and deceitful in all things does not cause me to believe that man is incapable of recognizing his need for a solution. The word wicked has different connotations to us and it presents no contradiction to me.

"It is also nonsense to say that you would agree with total depravity and disagree with total inability."

You are probably correct in this. I was trying to use vocabulary you understand to explain my concepts and this may have been a mistake. If I must take total depravity and total inability all or nothing, then I will have to say nothing as I currently understand them.

"You have yet to establish your notion of libertarian free will. Since your understanding of free will is something that I reject, your question is moot because it would imply an agreement on free will. In other words, you didn't ask a question pertaining to my position."

You also have failed to establish your notion of lack of free will. Since your understanding of no free will is something I reject maybe I will stop answering you questions as well.

"First off, an observation. You have contradicted what you said earlier. Earlier you noted that man could have free will and God still be sovereign (which would mean God being in control). You negate that now by stating "If God was in complete control...""

When I said "If God was in complete control..." I meant that if God took control of the writers' bodies and was using them as some kind of writing machine. It was probably a poor approach, let's try again. I believe that a believer who is in fellowship (1 John 1:9) and has the spiritual gift required for writing scripture (prophets and apostles) that the Holy Spirit used them to write inerrant scripture without their loosing their personalities or individual writing styles. How did the Holy Spirit communicate the inerrant word to them? I don't know and will not venture a guess. It is clear that the writers were in direct communication with God. When Paul prayed that God take away the thorn in the flesh three times before He responded "My grace is sufficient for you" I believe God actually said that to Paul.

"Who said anything about God turning His back? I didn't. The unregenerate man exists with his back already turned against God."

But if you believe in double predestination you believe that God then goes and spins some totally depraved souls around to face God and walks past the others. The ones that Jesus chose not to die for are still abandoned.

I am sure we will meet again in the blogosphere. God bless.

Glenn W.

12/11/2006 5:15 PM


98 Rose~ said...
Ten Cent,
We are not so different. I believe behavior is important too. I know it is very important to our witness and our Spiritual health.

I just don't think it is a condition of salvation or a necessary evidence to make us saved or to make us know we are are saved. Ah, maybe we are splitting hairs.

God bless.

12/11/2006 5:38 PM


99 GlennW said...
Gojira,

Correction please! In the last paragraph of my last post I finished with this sentence:

The ones that Jesus chose not to die for are still abandoned.

That was unfortunate phrasing, I forget that some people out here who do not know me will think that I actually believe that. I also want to clarify that I do not think that you would actually make that statement. I should have said something more like:

I hold to the belief that Christ died for everyone's sins and that all mankind has opportunity to be saved whether they choose to accept the offer of salvation or not. I do not believe that anyone born on this earth is ever without hope.

God bless.

Glenn W.

12/11/2006 7:28 PM


100 Anonymous said...
I've never seen any blog get 99 comments. I have never been number 100. Wow, you generate some really thought provoking stuff. Thanks! AS for looking in the mirror to see God in us, it's a good thing that's not where we have to look. God looks at us and sees Christ's robe of righteousness. He is our Righteousness. Our position is in Him because of what HE did, not anything we did, as you say, the non-doing. What grace! AS for "being born again" I will look up the tense. I've never thought it means a continual act, but rather "having been born again," but I have no doubt it's not about our doing something over and over. Sanctification is another matter, though even tho we must cooperate, God still initiates our growth.

12/11/2006 8:47 PM
No I will not, No I will not
Not go quietly
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lightninboy

Comments:

101 Dyspraxic Fundamentalist said...
Zoanna, you have obviously never visited Pyromaniacs.

12/12/2006 3:54 AM


102 Gojira said...
Hi Glenn,

Good post. Thanks for the interaction. You have a blessed Christmas my brother.

12/12/2006 5:38 AM


103 Ten Cent said...
Rose,

Yes, you are right. We are not very different. And really don't think that I'm all that much different than Matthew either.

Thanks for the discussion.

In Christ,
Ten Cent

12/12/2006 8:01 AM


104 Rose~ said...
Hi Zoanna,
I have not seen you in so long! I will pop over to your blog and see what you are up to these days. I remember, it was your question to me on the Bluecollar blog over a year ago that prompted me to write all those posts on TULIP that are in my sidebar. You must have missed those - and they were there to answer you!
God Bless.

Ten Cent,
Yes, we would all probably get along very well if we could talk face to face.

12/12/2006 1:49 PM


105 Gojira said...
Ha ha ha


I got the last word

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!

You get it, the very last post on the thread.....last word.....okay, maybe it wasn't that funny.

12/13/2006 1:00 PM


106 Rose~ said...
Not so fast.

12/13/2006 1:51 PM


107 Gojira said...
"Not so fast."

I'll sneak back in and take the last word "one mo'again"

But what is that last word.....hmmmm......what could the las word be? Exude.....

Ha ha ha he he he
I got a big smile
exuding from me!


LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And where is my purple passy?!?!?

12/13/2006 3:14 PM
No I will not, No I will not
Not go quietly
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Rose's Reasonings · Next Topic »
Add Reply


View My Stats Msn bot last visit powered by  Bots Visit Yahoo bot last visit powered by  Bots Visit